1951-03-13

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.
[Stage Direction]
RECROSSING OF 38th PARALLEL BY UNITED NATIONS TROOPS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is based on a news item appearing in yesterday's Ottawa Journal. If you will allow me, I should like to summarize it very briefly. Its purport is that General Matthew B. Ridgway said yesterday that it would be a tremendous victory for the United Nations if the Korean war should end at the 38th parallel, but he knows of no plan for hostilities to end there. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the Canadian government has discussed this matter of the United Nations forces again crossing the 38th parallel, and if it has, will he make a statement to the house?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, questions were asked of the government on the second and thirteenth of February, by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), on the subject of crossing the 38th parallel. There is nothing that I can usefully add at this time to what I said then.


Mr. Graydon:: May I suggest to the minister that the question that might well be asked is this: Why are the Chinese Reds south of the 38th parallel?



STATEMENT AS TO RECENT IMPORTATIONS AND BASIS OF DISTRIBUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross),, as to how much butter has been imported into Canada recently, and
by whom; the basis of the distribution of government stocks of butter, and what is the present situation with respect to butter.
Approximately 4,800,000 pounds of butter have been imported into Canada, and the Department of Agriculture has made arrangements with the importers or the first buyer for its distribution. The importations were made by Olive and Dorion, Montreal; Lovell and Christmas, Montreal; A. A. Ayre Company, Montreal; Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, and Eastern Townships Produce Company, Sherbrooke. The government has now allocated the remaining stocks held by the dairy products board for distribution over the next two weeks.
Government stocks were released to the trade across Canada in original carlots, basis 57 cents per pound, Montreal, for first grade creamery butter, upon application from dealers setting forth their stock position in relation to their requirements. Sales have been confined throughout the period to those dealers who had less than two weeks' supply of butter in sight.
Stocks of butter in storage as at March 1, 1951, were 14,900,000 pounds. The production of butter during March, 1950, was 12,500,000 pounds, and it is expected that the amount will be similar this year.


Mr. Fulton:: If I may ask a question in relation to the statement just made, having particular reference to the stocks of board butter which the minister says are now being released, may these stocks be sold in any province, or are they confined to certain provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: They may be sold in any province, but there are some provinces to which stocks are not being moved at the present time, particularly the prairie provinces.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Can the
Minister of Transport say whether we shall have the printed report of the royal commission on transportation in our hands before Easter?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The last information I had with respect
1186	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to the Turgeon report on transportation was that it is likely to be ready for tabling some time this week.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Can
the Minister of Public Works say whether his department or the city of Ottawa is responsible for the filthy, sandy condition of the streets in front of these buildings, which has existed for two or three weeks?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Is the hon. member speaking of the centre block? '


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, the streets for several blocks in front of these buildings. Is your department or the city responsible for the condition of Wellington street, for example?


Alphonse Fournier: I will take the question as a notice and give an answer as soon as I get the information.



YUKON TERRITORY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Angus MacInnis: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development, based upon a telegram I received this morning from Dawson city, Yukon. Has the government decided to move the seat of government for the new territorial council from Dawson to Whitehorse, and if so, is that being done in consultation with the Yukon territorial council?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 suggest that the hon. member put his question on the order paper.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like
to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how the government intends to deal with the legislation envisaged in the speech from the throne in these words:
Your approval will be sought for an appropriate Canadian participation in the Colombo plan . . .
Will that come down in the supplementary estimates, or by special legislation? How will it be dealt with by the house?
[Mr. Chevrier.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think it will be dealt
with by an item in the supplementary estimates, on which the discussion may take place.


Gordon Graydon: That is the supplementary
estimates-?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will be coming in May.


Mr. Abbott:: The main supplementary
estimates.


CANADIAN ARMY SPECIAL FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: I wonder
if I could have an answer from the Minister of National Defence to the question I sent him last Wednesday, which I repeated to the parliamentary assistant on Friday, namely:	Are officers of the special force
being encouraged to join the active army before proceeding to Korea, and if so, what conditions of service are they being offered?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first question
is yes; and to the second, they would have the same conditions of service as officers who were offered short-service or regular commissions, with the same opportunity of a continuing career. I should point out that the special force is part of the active force of the Canadian army.


Mr. Brooks:: If I may ask a supplementary question, what would be their rights under the veterans charter?


Brooke Claxton: That is receiving consideration.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I regret not having given him notice, but I think he will be able to answer it. It is in connection with a report which appeared in the Toronto Star of yesterday indicating the initial recruiting of women in the R.C.A.F. reserve, with the ultimate target of two hundred. My question is whether this recruitment will be invited in all parts of Canada.


Brooke Claxton: There is nothing whatever in the

report. The question of when and the conditions under which women may serve in the active and reserve forces is still receiving consideration.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to ask a question on a subject which is causing grave concern throughout Ontario. This is a matter I have brought up many times previously, but the situation is extremely serious at the present time. Is there any possible chance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce putting into effect some kind of priority so that the retail hardware dealer can get-


Some hon. Members:: Nails.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, nails; and so that the man trying to build his own home may be able to obtain one or two pounds of nails?


Mr. Cruickshank:: What is he building, a dog house?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to confine it to four-inch, three-and-a-half inch, three-inch and two-inch nails.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has asked his question.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I thought I knew the answer before the hon. member began to confine it;
I am not sure now. There is a shortage of nails. I believe it is temporary. The production of nails now is very much higher than it was during the last war, and it is hard to believe that the supply, if properly distributed, is not sufficient. There are spotty shortages. I think perhaps that is due to the fact that those with large contracts are buying their full requirements at this time instead of buying as the nails are needed. I am having the matter investigated, and I hope a better distribution can be arranged.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaughl (Prince):: Can
the Minister of Transport say whether any decision has been reached concerning the operation of the shuttle service by the Borden-Tormentine ferries this tourist season?


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member for Kings (Mr. Canadian Wheat Board Act Kickham) and the hon. member for Prince spoke to me about this matter some days ago. While no decision has been reached as to the operation of the shuttle service during the summer months, because of the satisfactory manner in which it operated during the last tourist season I think favourable consideration can be given this year to the operation of a service similar to that which was in effect last year.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex Easf):: Will the Minister of Resources and Development say whether any change in policy has been put into effect with respect to the occupancy by veterans of the Bellwood Park homes at London, Ontario, operated by Central Mortgage and Housing; and if there has been any change will the minister elaborate upon it?


Hon. Roberf H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I would have to know what change the hon. member has in mind. There has been no recent change in policy, but there have been changes from time to time. I will need to know more about the hon. member's -question before I can answer it.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Last evening before the house adjourned I spoke for approximately fifteen minutes on this matter. I set forth, among other things, what I considered to be certain unavoidable conclusions that must be drawn from the discussions we have had on this topic. From those four conclusions, I would mention again three. First, the farmers raising wheat should have a twenty-five cents per bushel payment on the pool wheat from 1946 to 1950. Second, Britain is in no way obligated to pay any part of that twenty-five cents. Third, the Canadian government, therefore, should pay the twenty-five cents. I shall not review any of the things which I said concerning those matters

Canadian Wheat Board Act last night, but I wish to deal briefly with the first conclusion, that Canadian farmers should receive a final payment of twenty-five cents per bushel.
Some evidence on this question is to be gathered from a statement which is attributed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). It is to be found in the Western Producer of November 13, 1950. The minister is alleged to have said that he did not believe the farmers in the west were being unreasonable. I do not believe the farmers of the west are being unreasonable, either. In the first place, the farmers went through a disastrous depression between 1929 and 1939. It is said that we all did, and that is quite true. For the farmers, however, the depression was more severe, I would imagine, than it was for most people. In a time of depression a farm tends to accumulate debt. If the farmer is going to recover, he must, in times of semi-prosperity, be free to gain sufficient to discharge that debt and rehabilitate himself.
All during the depression years the farmers were producing and selling wheat below the cost of production. They were looking naturally to the recovery of what might be called good times to re-establish themselves. Consequently, when the war came on and prices bid fair to rise, the farmers had1 a right to look to the improved prices as a means of. rehabilitating their farms. From the farmers' standpoint one of the main difficulties lies at this point. Just as soon as prices bid fair to rise above a certain level, the government intervened and prevented the farmers from profiting from the high prices.
The same thing was done in world war I. There was no disposition before world war II and during the depression for the government to intervene on behalf of the farmer to relieve the impact of those terrible depression years. The farmers were simply sold up. They were expelled from their land, those of them who were not able, somehow or other, to get by. As soon as it appeared that prosperity was about to return and that the farmer would be getting good prices, the government immediately intervened to prevent the farmer from doing so. Now, that is the first important consideration. When I say the farmers have gone through a disastrous depression, that is the general idea which I have in mind.
Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made a considerable point of the fact that prices were largely stabilized, and markets were stabilized, as a result of the United Kingdom-Canadian wheat agreement. That is true, and it redounds to the credit of the government. Apparently the government had in mindi stabilizing both 
prices and markets, and that is highly commendable. The difficulty which entered at this point was that whereas the farmers had good markets and reasonably good prices, the cost of production and the cost of living were permitted to rise, and that practically eliminated the advantage which the farmers had gained. In a general way the farmers feel that if the government has intervened to prevent them from profiting by the relatively high prices which might have prevailed during the war, and if at the same time the government has permitted freight rates to rise, the cost of machinery to rise and the cost of living to rise, and has seen fit to impose income taxes when the farmer does make a profit, then unquestionably the government has an inescapable responsibility to intervene to see that the farmers are not unduly penalized by the rising costs of production and living.
This principle was simply and clearly enunciated by me and agreed to by the member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) last night. If the munitions manufacturers were allowed1 during the war to have contracts under which they obtained the cost of production plus a just profit, then surely the farmers, who are producers of goods just as important as munitions, are not unreasonable when they also ask for a set-up which would give them the cost of production plus a fair profit.
There is a great deal of discussion throughout the country. We read bitter editorials here and there, and we hear radio commentators who, with respect to the problem, generate much more heat than light, confusing the issue and completely overlooking the fundamental basis of the whole contention of the western farmers.
I think it would be well to give just a sketchy indication of the increased costs under which the farmers are labouring and which they are unable to pass on. Before doing so may I point out that if a machine manufacturing company has its costs increased, it adds those costs into the ultimate cost of its product and makes the consumers pay. In the position in which the farmers find themselves, they are unable to do that; and this is an exceedingly important matter to keep in mind. Practically every other producer today in Canada, especially the manufacturer, is in a position to pass on his increased cost to the ultimate consumer. These producers are therefore in a better position than that occupied by the farmer.
Now I come to the farmers' cost: farm machinery, building materials, gasoline, oil and grease, feed, fertilizers, binder twine,

seed, hardware. These nine sets of commodities have increased in price between April, 1946 and August 1, 1950, as follows: In April, 1946, the index stood at 127-9; on August 1, 1950, the index stood at 194-3, an increase of 51-9 per cent. These figures I have taken from Labour Research of December,
1950,	to January, 1951, page 4, a document which I believe is unchallengeable as to accuracy.
As to farm living -costs, the farm living cost index stood at 126-1 in April, 1946. In August, 1950, it stood at 180-7, registering an increase of 54-6 in the index. This increase amounts to 43-3 per cent. These figures again are taken from the Labour Research bulletin or document, December, 1950, to January,
1951.
I now come to freight increases. One could deliver hours of discourse on the increases which have been permitted by this government to be brought into being by the railroads, all militating against the welfare of the western farmer particularly. I shall give only one item to show how seriously these freight rate increases have affected the farmers. During the past two and a half years livestock have had freight rate increases amounting to sixty-four per -cent. Thisl figure I draw from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's submission of February 15, 1951, to the cabinet of Canada.
How do the farmers compare with the rest of the country with respect to their total over-all income? Are the farmers receiving their fair share of the national income? The answer is to be found in these figures. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians are living on the farm, -but the income of those living on the farm amounts to only between twelve and fifteen per -cent of the income of Canada. These figures quite clearly indicate that farmers as a whole across Canada are receiving just about one-half of what they ought to receive, when they are compared with the rest of the people of Canada as a whole.
Hon. members may say: What has the government to do with that? I would reply: What did the government have to do with it during the war, when they held the prices the farmers could receive down to a certain figure while they allowed the cost of production and distribution to increase? What did the government do about that? Just about everything. What could the farmers do about it? Just about nothing. If the government of a country that means to be well governed does not take care of a group as important as the farmers are, then the country is obviously not going to be on the way to that measure of prosperity which the 80709-77
Canadian Wheat Board Act resources of the country would justify one in expecting the country to enjoy.


Mr. Pouliot:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Gladly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will he be kind enough to tell me whether he finds this bill to be a good one or a bad one; and if so, why?


John Horne Blackmore: Of course I realize that the hon. member is graciously and tactfully directing my attention to the fact that we are discussing another kind of bill entirely. But I must point out to him that all I am doing is following the lead of certain members of the government and members of the party to which he belongs. They have chosen to inject into the whole discussion reference to this 25-cent payment on wheat and I merely follow in line.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you follow their lead, you should support them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not so sure about that.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Mr. Fair:: To follow you I'm not content until * I know which way you went.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member consider himself answered until I have the opportunity to answer him better?


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


John Horne Blackmore: The next question is this. In the increase of prices which we are now suffering from, obviously the costs of food enter as an important determining item. To what extent are increased prices obtained by farmers for such things as milk, butter, potatoes, apples, and the like, and to what extent are those increases they are receiving entering into the over-all increase of costs? The farmers are not getting a higher share in proportion to the increase in the price of such things as milk. In order to go into that question and establish that fact scientifically one would have to indulge in considerable discussion which I think probably it is better that we do not go into at the present time. I think my statement can be supported completely.
There is one other matter which I wish to mention for the benefit -of all hon. members who find themselves in the position of the hon. member for Simcoe North. They are saying to themselves, particularly the Ontario and Quebec people: Well, we are the ones who are paying the taxes. This $65 million or $100 million or $200 million, or whatever it

Canadian Wheat Board Act is, is all coming out of us, and we cannot see why we should be for ever penalized in order to help out these western farmers.
Let me draw this very important matter to their attention. The best market that Ontario and Quebec have is western Canada. When western Canada prospers, there is full employment in Ontario and Quebec, and good times in Ontario and Quebec. If Ontario and Quebec desire to have prosperity, then they must be in a position, or they must take a position, in which they can ensure prosperity to the farmers of the west. I do not think there is a responsible member from Ontario or Quebec who would not confess the truth of that general statement.
Ontario and Quebec rule Canada. Ontario and Quebec members can outvote the members from all the other eight provinces by a margin of fifty. The result is that if anything goes wrong in this country, the responsibility for that error lies squarely on the shoulders of Ontario and Quebec. All the rest of us put together are unable to influence materially the decisions of the members of those two provinces. Men may try to laugh that off, but the grim reality of the truthfulness of it stands out to everyone who has given any serious thought to the conditions obtaining in this nation.
Therefore, if you are finding that the western farmers are in difficulties because of freight rates, the Ontario and Quebec members are to blame; for they can change the matter. If the western farmers are suffering from inflation, Ontario and Quebec members are the people who are guiding the government whose policies determine whether or not there shall be anything done about inflation. And so on, all through the whole list of the factors which affect the prosperity of Canada.
I say to the Ontario and Quebec members: If you choose to put the western farmers in a position in which they are not prospering, or are in danger of failing, then you must be prepared to pay out of your pockets the money which will tend to keep them from going over the cliff. There is not very much of a successful answer to that that the hon. member for Simcoe North can see. And so I do not hesitate to suggest that the money which is necessary to put the western farmers in a condition in which they can be a good market for Ontario and Quebec should be drawn from the revenues of Canada as a whole.
Let Ontario and Quebec people not imagine for a minute that they are paying all the costs. Income taxes weigh quite as heavily on the other eight provinces as they do on the people of Ontario and Quebec, and perhaps more heavily. The incidence of the


tariff on these provinces is far more onerous than it is on the people of Ontario and Quebec, and the incidence of freight rates is far more onerous on the eight other provinces than it is on Ontario and Quebec; this has been brought out time and again. And all the profits which are m-ade by the largest companies, in the main, pour into Ontario and Quebec. Go round the streets of Toronto and look at the great buildings you find there. Go into Montreal and look at the great buildings you find there. You cannot find buildings like them, or comparable with them, anywhere in the other eight provinces. Who has built those great buildings? The farmers of the west and the farmers of the east, of the other eight provinces, have built them. There is just no way of answering that argument. So let the Ontario and Quebec members not suppose for a minute that we are not paying our full share.
In passing may I refer to the amount of wealth which has poured into the Dominion of Canada as a whole as a result of the activities of the western farmers during the past years through wheat alone. Just read the speeches of certain hon. members. Read the speech of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Fair) who has set forth the amount of wheat that in world war II has been sold, and the amount that was received for it. All that money came into Canada to help to increase the prosperity of Ontario and Quebec as well as the other eight provinces. There is much wealth to be obtained from the eight other provinces of Canada if Ontario and Quebec will so manage that they can produce to their optimum.
I think I will say no more at the present time, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the justification for the request of the western farmers that there should be money appropriated to make up to them for the money which was taken out of their pockets as a result of the price fixing which prevailed during the war.
Having discussed that matter, I desire to proceed to the important question of the responsibility, or the .possible responsibility, of Britain for any share of that 25 cents. I see that my time is exhausted. I shall go on with that subject at the next available opportunity.


Mr. J. J. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat said last evening as recorded at page 1181 of Hansard:
I am going to give the men who are involved a chance to clear their names before this house and before the Canadian people.

In his remarks last night he referred to me. I want to assure the hon. gentleman, the house and the people of Canada, that so far as I am concerned my name is quite clear. Since he quoted a part from Hansard-I have no objection to that-I would ask him and others, including the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), at least to use the Whole sentence and not just part of it.


Mr. Rene N. Juiras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I did not speak on this very important question in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, because I felt at the time that since the question was under discussion between the two governments some of the things I might have said might have hindered in some way rather than helped the negotiations going on between the two governments. Therefore at that time, although I was very anxious to speak on the matter, I chose not to do so. I did, however, outside the house and in whatever way I knew, advocate in every possible way a final payment of twelve cents. Since that time the decision of the government has been announced, and the discussion has been going on for a few days in this house.
In view of the confusing criticisms that have come from the opposition benches since the debate has started, and particularly in view of the "I told you so" attitude of many hon. members of the opposition, I thought I owed it to my constituents, the people I represent in this house, to state my view and indirectly the majority of the views of the people in my constituency.
Before I go on I should like to first establish the position taken by the various parties in this house at the time this agreement was signed. I think it is important, particularly in view of. the argument that has been put forward since then,
Those who were here at the time the agreement was presented to the house will recall that members of all parties and from all provinces raised no objection to the agreement being signed by the Canadian government. I know that since then members of the official opposition have said that they did not support the agreement, and for that reason I should like to place on the record the exact words of the then leader of the opposition, Mr. John Bracken, when he spoke on that occasion.* I quote from page 4811 of Hansard of August 14, 1946, as follows:
I rise at this time to criticize the government's wheat policy. But before doing so, let me say this, with respect to the United Kingdom wheat agreement. Any agreement such as this which tends to level out the inequalities, and the wide fluctuations of prices in the past, is a step in the right direction. Even this agreement is better than no agreement at all; because, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed
Canadian Wheat Board Act out, those of us who went through the price depression following the last war know the danger of proceeding without some kind of plan to try to avoid wide fluctuations in prices.
Those are the words of the then leader of the official opposition, uttered at the time the agreement was under discussion. Surely those words would not lead1 one to the conclusion that that party did not support the agreement. Naturally there was some criticism of the agreement during the debate, but I submit, and I think the record bears me out, that the criticism was as to the details while the principle of the agreement as such was supported by that party.
I think it is a good thing to remind hon. members of the opposition, and particularly the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), who told us how Mr. Bracken had foreseen what was going to happen in the years to come, just what happened at that time. I remember quite well the discussion that took place. It hinged on the possibility of prices going down. Nowhere on the record will there be found any discussion as to the price going up. So far as I can see, no one in the house, except the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), foresaw the possibility of any advance in price.
The main argument at that time against -the agreement was that it would hinder our trade, that we would have less trade. The record shows that the United Kingdom wheat agreement did not bring about that effect in any way. I would point out that as a result of this agreement our average sales of wheat to the United Kingdom increased from 90 million bushels per year in the fifteen years preceding the agreement to 150 million bushels per year during the five years of the agreement. So far as trading and the sale of wheat was concerned, the agreement definitely helped the situation. Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) put on the record reasons to support that contention. It is rather late for any member of the official opposition to advance the contention that his party did not support the agreement at the time.
Now we come to another party in the house, the C.C.F. When the agreement was presented to the house they supported it with both hands. But, strange as it may seem, since the agreement has been concluded they have been endeavouring to put up a big show in the house, with all the noise possible, in an effort to excuse their socialist friends in England. They have virtually refused to accept the statements of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and even of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). In their enthusiasm they
1192	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act have completely ignored the case of the western farmer. Not one single C.C.F. member has referred to that phase of the case.
This is not unusual, because we know from experience that our C.C.F. friends have the habit of giving lip service to larger and larger payments to western agriculture, and then every time the government makes a payment to the farmers you never see at any other time such a lot of disappointed people in the house. It is always apparent on their faces every time the government announces a payment. Invariably they deprecate the payment to the farmers. I do not think any of them will deny that statement, because it is so obvious to all who have been in this house.


An hon. Member:: Because it is too small.


René Jutras: If my hon. friend wants proof, I can easily give it to him, and I would not need to go back many years to show how they appeared to be disappointed that too large a payment was paid to the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


René Jutras: Just listen for a minute. I do not need to go back very far. I need only to go back earlier in this debate and turn to Hansard of last Friday.


An hon. Member:: What page?


René Jutras: You will get it soon enough. Strange as it may seem, this did not come from a C.C.F. member who was not wise to what was going on. As a matter of fact it came from the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). I take it that the hon. member is the official critic of the C.C.F. when it comes to agriculture. The fact that he was the first one to take up the discussion of this subject indicates that he has a senior status in the C.C.F. party.
When the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) was speaking the other night-he should remember it-he referred to the payment of 8-3 cents, and said that more should be paid. Then the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) interjected and said that we do not buy votes. Then the hon. member for Melfort said: What about the twenty cents interim payment?
The hon. member should have been the last to infer that the twenty cents payment was made for the buying of votes. He should know as well as anyone in this house that that twenty-cent payment did not come from the taxpayers of this country. That twenty-cent payment came from money of the farmers themselves. The only thing that the government was doing was to take twenty cents that the farmers had accumulated in the pool and distribute it to them. The hon.


member for Melfort was ready to insinuate that that was buying votes, when it was not even public money.


Percy Ellis Wright: You led the farmers to believe that there would be a further payment.


René Jutras: I know you are on record and I can turn to previous debates where you have made the same contention. You were quiet for a while. We never heard about it for quite a while. Then apparently in the heat of your enthusiasm for your friends across the seas you forgot yourself and interjected the remark:	What about the
twenty-cent interim payment? As I said, that is what happened, and if that is not deprecating a payment made to farmers, I do not know what is. It illustrates exactly the attitude of our C.C.F. friends in Saskatchewan.
Last night, after the Minister of Trade and Commerce made his speech, the leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), rose to his feet and shifted the grounds of the argument once more. Frankly I must say that I enjoyed very much the exhibition of the sleight of reasoning that the leader of the C.C.F. gave us last night. As a matter of fact he came out with a completely new interpretation of the "have regard to" clause. What he tried to say, what he tried to insinuate was that the "have regard to" clause was related to the cost of living. He even went so far as to say that he had argued that point at the time the debate on the agreement as such took place. Of course no member of the C.C.F. party, including their leader, ever argued that point. What they did was to criticize the agreement because it was not related to the cost of living.
There may be some point in that argument but that is exactly what they did at the time. They criticized it very severely. How can they possibly come into the house now and say that it did take the cost of living into consideration? If it did at that time, why did they criticize the agreement so vehemently? The two just do not add up. The leader of the C.C.F. was trying to shift the basis of the argument, and I notice that some of his followers have tried to do the same thing. Having very neatly tied the agreement to the cost of living, he proceeded to say there was a real obligation, but the obligation* attached only to the Canadian government.
I submit that there is or is not an obligation. If there is an obligation, there are two signatories to it. That being so, it applies to both of them, or else there is no obligation on the part of either of them so far as the

agreement is concerned. I submit that the leader of the C.C.F. party cannot have it both ways.
That leads us to the contract itself. It is an admitted fact that all -parties in this house -as a matter of fact, all members of the house from all provinces across Canada- gave approval, either directly or otherwise, to the agreement being signed by the Canadian government on behalf of the farmers. Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce made an excellent speech indeed. I am very happy that he made the statement he did last night. It was a good statement. It did two things. It brought together all the statements he had made previously in the house. Let me interject once again that for those listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night there was nothing new. There was nothing that he had not said and repeated at least four times in the course of the debate. He merely gathered it all together into one statement.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce did go further; he brought out exactly what the United Kingdom wheat agreement had meant to the agricultural economy of western Canada over the last five years; and I must say he made an excellent job of showing the value of the agreement. Of course we from western Canada are most grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for having made that statement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is well known throughout Canada. He is well known out west. His ability as a businessman, as an administrator, and in public affairs, is also common knowledge in the three prairie provinces. Anybody who would sit back and' ignore the advice of such a man would indeed be very foolish, and the farmers of western Canada are not that foolish.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Did he give any advice to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)?


René Jutras: The farmers appreciate very much what has been said. Now we come to the contract itself. I must admit that I could not agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), for instance, who contended that the "have regard to" clause was a mysterious clause. To me the contract appeared to be very simple, and I believe that is the general impression that existed among the great majority of the farmers of the west. To me it is merely an ordinary open contract. A great many people are scandalized at our having signed an open contract. Nowadays-and this applied particularly to the period right after the last war-who can get a closed contract for anything? Only on
Canadian Wheat Board Act a very few things would anybody offer a closed contract. I know from personal experience that when I built a house I could not get a closed contract. The contractor agreed to a set price to build the house, but there was a "have regard to" clause in the contract which said that if the price of lumber or other materials went up I would have to pay the difference. Naturally prices did go up and I had to pay the difference. That was just an ordinary "have regard to" clause.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the very same thing was done with respect to the wheat agreement, except for one important point, that we did not name what percentage of the increase we would absorb or what percentage of the increase we would require the United Kingdom government to pay. The determination of the amount was left to the good will of the two countries, and you know that is something which is very hard to enforce. We recognized that, and I -agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that, so far as the whole contract is concerned, legally the United Kingdom is quite right in trying to maintain the position that it has no further payment to make. I am not suggesting -at this time that they broke the contract or that they are legally at fault.
However, if hon. members review the five years of the agreement I think they will be impressed by the fact that the farmers of western Canada have a real contention. What happened? When the agreement was signed it was for a period of five years, -and the price in the first three years was $1.55. Then comes the "have regard to" clause, which said that if prices went up or down the price to be set in 1948 would be adjusted accordingly. They did not say the price would be $2. That is what a lot of people forget. If the agreement had said that for the first three years the price would be $1.55 and for the next two years $2, then there would not have been any discussion about it, and the farmers would not have asked for more money. It would have been a closed contract, and on that basis that would have been that; but there was the "have regard to" clause. So in 1948, when the price of wheat was to be arrived at, there was a discussion between the two governments. At that time, when they came to the decision that they would pay $2 for 1948, a statement was issued. That was not just by the Canadian government or the British government; it was a joint statement by the two governments which said they were paying $2, and that regard would be had in fixing later prices. That statement was quite clear; it has been put on the record two or three times.
1194	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act
When the next year rolled around there was another discussion between the two governments; again a joint statement was issued to the effect that the settlement would come in the middle of 1950, which would be at the end of the crop year. So, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder the farmers of western Canada were led to believe that this clause meant something, after repeated statements, not only by responsible ministers of this government but by responsible ministers of the Labour government in Great Britain? Those statements always referred to the fact that a settlement would be made at the end of the five year period. Consequently the farmers of western Canada, and all their organizations, were led to believe that a settlement would be made and something would be forthcoming.


Mr. Carroll:: What interpretation was
placed upon the have regard clause which makes it necessary now for the dominion government to pay another $65 million?


René Jutras: I am coming to that. I have just established that the joint statements by the responsible ministers concerned led the farmers to believe they would have a settlement. Now I submit that if on technical or legal grounds, at the end of the five year period, after all the wheat had been disposed of, both governments had suddenly decided that while there might be something in our claim still they were not tied down legally, it would have been a most unfortunate thing for a responsible government to do. Certainly I think it would have been breaking faith with a large section of our people who rightly or wrongly believed that a settlement would be forthcoming. To my mind there is no legal indebtedness, but there is a very real obligation, call it a moral obligation if you will or a matter of keeping faith, because of the publicity and the whole process that took place during those five years.
I am proud indeed that in spite of what has transpired the Canadian government has seen fit to recognize that moral obligation to a very large section of western Canada. It would have been a sorry thing if the government had completely ignored their plight. Just on this point I should like to refer to a paragraph in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, March 10, which disturbed me considerably. It refers to this contract and offers more or less the same arguments I have presented, though in a slightly different way. Then it comes to this conclusion:
Therefore, to sum up, it is an evil thing for the Canadian government to be taking $65 million out of the Canadian treasury-which in fact it is doing -to hand over to Canadian farmers-and especially


evil when, doing this, they compound the wrong by saying they are doing it because Britain will not honour an obligation.
After reviewing the events as they took place, after reviewing all the statements that were made, I think it would have been a very evil thing if a responsible government had completely ignored those statements or even stood on perfectly sound legal and technical grounds in order to break faith with the people. After all, certain things are written and certain things are not, but they are all equally binding. In my opinion it was a question of keeping faith, and I am proud indeed that even at the cost of $65 million to the taxpayers of the country, this government recognized that obligation. The farmers of Canada have always trusted a Liberal government, and that fact had a great deal to do with this agreement being signed. The farmers might not have supported such an agreement but for that trust. They knew this administration would never break faith with them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and they had that trust as a result of what has taken place over the last twenty years.
Well, now, what does it mean to the taxpayers? In spite of the fact that $65 million is to be taken out of the treasury I submit that this is still the best bargain the taxpayers have had in our whole history as a nation. I do not want to go into great detail, but let us look at the subsidy angle in the matter of wheat. It has been pointed out already, and we all know, that from March 1945 to February 1947, though we were selling wheat to Great Britain at the reduced price of $1.55 and selling it at much higher prices outside the agreement, we were still bound to sell our wheat for Canadian consumption at $1.25. WeU, simple arithmetic shows that this price meant a loss of 30 cents a bushel, and I believe some 160 million bushels of wheat were sold at that loss. If you take $48 million lost to the farmers at that time, the remainder amounts to only a cent or a cent and a quarter, which is all we have to pay in order to keep faith with our people. So this contribution does not mean such a loss to the taxpayer. It has been made up to him many times by the fact that he obtained wheat at this price.
Now I come to the amendment proposed by the official opposition moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), and the subamendment moved by the C.C.F. party. I very much regret the amendment of the opposition because it is quite clear, not only from the amendment but from at least the great majority of the speeches coming from the Conservative side, that the whole idea

behind the amendment is to rid the country of any bulk trading, any state trading, any long-range agreements. That is quite clear; it is so stated in the amendment, the last sentence of which reads:
-and on the government's mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Now, this is a double condemnation, where I note that it includes the handling of coarse grains, because those were the only grains that were not handled by the Canadian wheat board. Mr. Speaker, this is definitely not the view of organized agriculture in the western provinces, because there is a great demand that coarse grains be handled by the Canadian wheat board. The day before yesterday I received a resolution from an organization in my constituency asking that this be not changed in any way, shape or form.
After this amendment was moved by the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) that the government be censured for its mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grain, the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) made a lengthy but interesting speech with his usual race track showmanship. What point did he drive home? All the way through his speech the point he sought to make was to get rid of this board and go back to the open market.
I could turn to the remarks of the member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) who propounded this view quite strongly. Then, I could as a matter of fact-


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Would the hon. member quote the page in Hansard where the member for Dufferin-Simcoe advocated going back to the open market?


René Jutras: I said that the member for Dufferin-Simcoe had made it clear that he was going to take advantage of this difference of opinion to get rid of such bulk or long-term agreements handled by the government. There is only one alternative.


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member mentioned the open market; will he quote the page in Hansard where the member used those words?


René Jutras: I could very easily but the member can read Hansard as well as I can.


James Arthur Ross: I believe if any member makes such a statement he should quote the page in Hansard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can refer to a speech without being obliged to quote the page number.


James Arthur Ross: A member is not supposed to make false statements.
Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Jutras: I said he was anxious to get rid of long-term agreements.


James Arthur Ross: You said open trading.


René Jutras: I am saying that the only alternative is the open market. I believe that has been the contention of most members of the official opposition, and to all intents and purposes the C.C.F. party seems to have fallen in line with it. Strange as it may seem, they are now very good bedfellows on the question of this agreement. I submit that both amendments could be dangerous in turning the clock backwards. I believe that is something organized agriculture does not want to see happen at this time. I should like to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Manitoba Co-Operator, which is published weekly by the Manitoba pool elevators. After the announcement was made concerning the $65 million and the $48 million, this newspaper dealt with the criticism being offered in its issue of March 8. The editorial reads in part as follows:
The wheat board, with whatever faults it may have, as well as the Canada-U.K. agreement, and the international wheat agreement, with their so-called drawbacks, have at least provided the producer with a guaranteed price, with all receiving the maximum price under the wheat board pooling operation.
Farther down it reads:
Farmers should realize, particularly the younger men, that in thirty-two crop years, on the Winnipeg grain exchange, only on two occasions did the high price for the year exceed the $1.83 which is the final payment under the five-year pool. And only in four years did the average price exceed $1.50.
These statements appeared in the Manitoba Co-Operator, as I said, of March 8. I should like to stress that point, and put on the record the annual message of the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Mr. Hannam, in January of this year. Looking over the trend, he had this to say: The general trend of our Canadian farm program has been to try to eliminate as much as possible of the risk and gamble with which agriculture has been plagued in the past, and replace them with some reasonable measure of stability and security on a long-term basis. The risks, gamble, and resulting insecurity in agriculture have been due to frost, hail and drought; to weeds, pests, blight and disease; and to the uncertainties of widely fluctuating prices both domestically and in world markets.
Extraordinary progress has been made in moving towards this goal even though it is difficult for some to appraise the security achieved. They should compare it with the insecurity of former years, rather than with occasional temporary gains of some who are outside the program. Our enemies, of course, play up such temporary gains when they have a chance to do so, in the hope that they can undermine the long-term stable features of this program and have agriculture revert to a so-called open competitive market with its more lucrative benefits for themselves.
That our producers have not fallen for such bait is a tribute to their foresight and strength of purpose.
1196	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act I only quote these paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, to indicate it is still the wish of farmers to carry on along the lines they adopted years ago. Anyone in this house who moves an amendment such as the amendment moved by the member for Souris is not doing a service to organized agriculture in the west, because it may undermine some of the work done so far. This is particularly true if the amendment is related to a bill dealing with the wheat board, because although it does not come into operation for some time, if we allow any group in this house to sap the strength of the Canadian wheat board, which is so popular with western farmers, it may well be the end of the Canadian wheat board. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly associate myself with either of these amendments. If anyone is going to lynch the wheat board, I am not going to be a member of the posse.


James Arthur Ross: Good old schoolteacher. Is the hon. member a member of the pool?


Harry Oliver White: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the opinions expressed by the various members on this wheat question. Down through the years that I have been here I suppose more time has been spent discussing the marketing of wheat than any other subject which comes before the house. Before I discuss some of the phases of the problem that are uppermost in, the minds of the people I have the honour to represent,
I should like to mention to the house-I regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is not in his seat at the moment- that last Wednesday the Prime Minister visited London, Ontario. While there he was given an honorary degree by the university of Western Ontario, which is situated in my riding. He also took time to visit the seed fair which was in progress in that city, put on by the Middlesex crop and seed improvement association, and which is the outstanding seed fair in the Dominion of Canada.
I am sure that he enjoyed his visit both to the university and to the seed fair.
Down through the years we have more or less had it laid down that, for the sake of good government, it would be necessary to have cabinet solidarity. But now we find the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) replying to a question of the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton) asking if the same treatment as is proposed for the western wheat grower was going to be extended to the eastern farmer; and the answer was no. Then yesterday we heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) saying that the wheat deal was a closed book, that both Britain and Canada have fulfilled their 

agreements under it and there was nothing more to it. Then we heard that this "have regard to" clause was not being honoured. So we find that the cabinet is more or less split over this question. What are the people back home going to believe? What do they think about it?
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce were in his seat I think he would recall that last fall, at the time of the harvesting of the winter wheat in Ontario, a meeting was held in the city of Chatham, and at that time the government refused to implement the Agricultural Prices Support Act and support the price of winter wheat at that time. I said then, and I will say it again, that so far as the Agricultural Prices Support Act has been operative in this country, it was put on the statute books for one purpose and for one purpose only, namely to win two elections. As far as we are concerned, to date it has not amounted to a hill of beans Personally I am interested in the production of honey. The attempt to support the price of honey was an ill-advised scheme and it has depressed the price of honey for the next two years instead of helping it. Whoever was the "brains" back of it should certainly revise his thinking a little bit, because it was the worst scheme I have ever seen in operation.
During this session the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and I entered into a little argument over a statement regarding the production of sugar. A statement was made in Chatham and then another statement was made in the house. It seems to me that they use one argument in the country, as it suits the country, and then come into the house and correct that. Those things have been, going on. We find parliamentary assistants to the ministers flying kites and then having the statements repudiated. Where are we heading with all this?
Last summer a meeting was held in Stratford, Ontario, with regard to the marketing of cheese.


An hon. Member:: Where is cheese today?


Harry Oliver White: After the government got out, the price went up. The requisitioning of cheese cost the cheese producers of the province of Ontario many thousands of dollars. One factory-and I will mention the name of it, Dorchester Union- from May to December 31, 1950, lost $4,100 because of government monkeying in cheese; but the government are not going to come across with $65 million to help the Ontario wheat producer, the cheese producer, the bacon producer or any other producers. Yet they are expecting not only the farmers but the consumers in the cities, who are already

harassed by high taxes, to put their hands down in their pockets and help support this gamble-I will say that word again, gamble -on the part of the government with regard to Canadian wheat. The only trouble is that they gambled and lost. Now they want the taxpayers to become a part of it. If I gamble and lose, nobody comes to my rescue.


John Horne Blackmore: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harry Oliver White: Certainly.


John Horne Blackmore: Would he not think it would be advisable for his province to come seeking reimbursement such as he indicates they ought to have in respect to cheese and other commodities? If they are entitled to it, why do they not come and seek it?


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: Since when has the province of Alberta come to the rescue of any of the eastern provinces? Not in my recollection.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the hon. gentleman about the western farmers. I am asking why he does not come seeking assistance for the eastern farmers?


George Stanley White: I answered that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Dewar:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


George Stanley White: No.
Mr Fraser: He has the floor. Let him finish.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order.


Austin Edwin Dewar: I was wondering if the hon.
member wants us to do away with the subsidy we paid last year?


George Stanley White: You fellows got into this trouble, and you are going to get out of it.


Austin Edwin Dewar: You want the government to do away with the subsidy, do you?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Middlesex East has the floor.


George Stanley White: The government arrived at a figure of $65 million. What relation that has to the amount that may be owing or otherwise to the western wheat producer is more than I can understand.


An hon. Member:: Do not spank them too hard.


George Stanley White: It has been suggested that it is the unused balance of the loan to Britain of $1,250 million, that it was the $65 million that was remaining. What bearing that has on the question I fail to understand. You might just as well say that
Canadian Wheat Board Act it is 65 million miles from here to one of the planets and arrive at the same figure. It has not any bearing whatever on the question before us; but apparently it was the best figure that they were able to dig out of the bag. As was said by the eastern farmer to whom I was talking last week end when I was home, the truth of the matter is this. They have gambled and lost. The people of the west voted for this; this is what they voted for. Now that they are reaping the results of it, they do not like it, and they want somebody else to participate in it.


Mr. Johnston:: Are you against paying the $65 million.


George Stanley White: I am coming to that. I will look after my riding; you look after yours.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, you are just looking after your riding? We were looking after all of Canada.


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Order.


George Stanley White: It is found that trading in farm commodities is purely and simply a gamble, and one that has been lost. It is about time that we arrived at some policy so that we know where we are going to go. The farmers in eastern Canada last year had their cheese requisitioned at a price many cents below the price they could have obtained, but they are not going to be compensated now. The Prime Minister has said so. None of the other producers of farm commodities are likely to be compensated.


Mr. Thatcher:: How about your hog producers?


George Stanley White: If the railway workers make a deal, they honour it. Then when the contract has expired, they draw up another one based on the conditions existing at that time. But you do not go digging down into the taxpayer's pocket and say: We will give them some more now. I think we shall have to arrive at some different policy altogether.


Mr. J. I. Helland (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, in rising today I want to take part in this debate because I am a farmer and I represent a farming constituency. But I also became slightly hot under the collar here on Friday on reading the speech made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). It surprised me a great deal, because I thought he was a fine fellow; but his attacks-


An hon. Member:: What a mistake.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I did not think he would
stoop that low, and make statements when he did not know whether they were true or not. Attacks of this kind to me in this house

Canadian Wheat Board Act are disgusting, to say the least. He attacked all the western Liberals. He said that we made broad commitments or broad statements in our 1949 election campaign, where we said that all the farmers expected a good payment on the five-year pool. That is a falsehood so far as I am concerned. I never made any statements of that kind. I want the hon. member to know that. I think I shall quit this subject now. I was pretty mad yesterday, and if I had got the floor yesterday I would have said more.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Keep going.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Before I go on with my main speech I should like to say this. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) always seems to take a delight in bringing up the last 20-cent payment on wheat in the 1949 crop year. This was brought up in the agriculture committee, and I think the hon. member knows what the wheat board said. I should like to bring this out, because a lot of people out west have not had the actual facts. It has to do with the $5 million deficit. The wheat board did not have quite enough money, and it was explained in this way. They had lent money to the flax account. This is what the hon. member for Melfort said:


Percy Ellis Wright: I had not finished yet. I am more
muddled than when we started, Mr. Minister.


Mr. Argue:: Give me the page.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Page 104. I will attend to you afterwards. I continue:


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: The board reported that
they could safely pay 20 cents a bushel. They paid it out and the comptroller has told you that they did not have to borrow any money to make the payment.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not think that is right.


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: Is that a fact?
The minister turned to Mr. Earl of the wheat board and he said:


Right Hon.   Mr. Howe@: Is that a fact?


Mr.   Earl@: That is correct.


Percy Ellis Wright: Did you not have to borrow any
money at all to make the payment on wheat? Because you just took the money out of the flax and coarse grain accounts. It was not due you as a payment on wheat at all?


Mr.   Earl@: It was a repayment of wheat money
that had been loaned to government account for financing purposes.
It went on for a while. I wanted a little more explanation of this $5 million so I asked the wheat board these questions:
Q. I am not quite satisfied with this deficit of $5 million. Where is that going to be charged? Is it going to be charged to the wheat account or to the coarse grain account?
A. There is no deficit.
[Mr. Hetland.l
The hon. member for Melfort knows of this, but I am bringing it out so that I will get it on the record. I continue:
Q. But there is a deficit here on the pool account.
A. It has nothing to do with the coarse grain account.
Q. You took some money to buy flax, for example?
A. We bought flax on the government's account. Now, ordinarily, the government would send us a cheque. They eventually did so; but they did not send us a cheque at the time; and we had a considerable amount of money on hand.
Q. The farmers' money?
A. The farmers' money.
Q. Wheat money?
A. So we loaned this money in our own organization to the government and we charged them bank interest. That, to my mind, in the words of a layman, is all that there was to the transaction.
Q. That was good business?
A. I think it was.
I think that should settle that 20-cen1 problem.
Coming back to this wheat payment, or what is added on to the five-year pool, I will admit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was rather disappointed with the 8'3 cents per bushel, because I had expected around 12 cents. I felt that $100 million spent by this country would be very well spent on the western wheat growers, because they think they had something coming on this "have regard to" clause.
I have never asked at any time for 25 cents. The C.C.F. party has always tried to tell us that they work for the common man. In asking for the 25-cent payment on 1,400 million bushels it will amount to $350 million. Where would the government get that money? They could not wave a magic wand and pull it out of the air. They would have to tax every man, woman and child in this country, and they talk about the standard of living.
If the government were to put it on taxes what about the old age pensioners and the people who are living on fixed incomes? Would not that lower their standard of living? I am just asking a fair question. If the government should decide to pay this 25 cents I certainly am not going to refuse it, because it would be very nice to me as a farmer, and I know that my constituents would be very well pleased to get it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Where are they getting the $65 million, if not from all the people of Canada?


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: Would it not be worse if we were getting $350 million?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is not the point.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I am not arguing that. I am very well pleased, and tickled to death that we are getting $65 million.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. member asked, would it not be worse? Does he consider the $65 million bad?


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I do not get your point. Some members of the opposition would say that they would not have to tax the common man because the old age pensioners pay no income tax; but they certainly would have to tax businesses and corporations, they would say. Well, in setting the prices for their commodities business people take in all the expenses. I say to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) I am sure that whenever he sets the price on an article in his chain stores he certainly adds all the taxes.


Arthur Laing: Does he pay any?


Mr. Boucher:: Production for use, not profit.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I presume he does because the hardware is a pretty fair business at the present time.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does he reduce prices on Saturday nights?


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I do not think we should criticize the wheat agreement too much. I am a farmer, and when this wheat agreement was made I certainly agreed with it. I am concerned about selling wheat. We can never expect any government that makes an agreement with another government to be able to see ahead four or five years. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a good deal.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why pay more now?


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said yesterday, I do not believe that he would make the same deal today as he made then, but at the same time I am satisfied that he did his best. Anybody who enters into an agreement of any kind knows that it takes two to make an agreement and one person is bound to get the better end of the deal. If we farmers get a little less I think we should take it and realize that we should look more to the future than to the" past, because we certainly want stability and we want good relationships with England.
If we attack the British government-our socialist friends have been trying to whitewash the socialist government in England. That is all right; but I still believe they have a little responsibility in this "have regard to" clause. I believe that can be easily proven by re-opening the discussion. That does not mean that the English people are to blame and we should remember that.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You had better read again the speech yesterday of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: I have read it. I was farming in 1929 when wheat was around $1.60 and I can remember that England stopped buying wheat from us because they claimed the pools and the grain trade were holding up the price. I was told, and I believe it is true, that the bread wagons over there carried notices stating that they were buying no Canadian wheat. There was considerable ill-feeling and we do not want to have that again.
Yesterday the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) tried to leave the impression that the government was not getting as good a price as the United States price. He knows very well why we were not getting the United States price, and this was brought out last year in the agriculture committee. I should like to repeat one of the reasons that were given why we were not getting that price. The hon. member for Assiniboia was questioning Mr. Mclvor of the wheat board, and I quote from page 121 of the proceedings:
Q. Then, a question following that one-why the change? Why two or three years ago was our class II wheat being sold at a premium and why today is it being sold at a price lower than American prices?
A. Well, we have wheat to sell and we are selling it under a very considerable handicap. The Americans are providing wheat-I use the word "providing" because I think that is the correct word-for Germany and Japan and Korea, which are areas of their responsibility, and for other areas of responsibility. That wheat, in many instances, is bought by the American army from the commodity credit corporation. Of the internal arrangements existing in Germany, Japan and Korea, I do not know.
We have wheat to sell and we are selling it at the best price we can get, but, unfortunately, it is not as high as the American price. However, we are trying to get into these markets with this wheat and hold our position in the world export trade.
Q. I do not want to leave the impression that I am criticizing the board for having done that.
A. Well, that is the reason.
Q. The reason is that the Americans have become more competitive for the reasons you have given.
A. Now, I will give you an example of the type of competition that we have been up against in regard to the sale of wheat. We offered three cargoes of wheat to a prominent buyer, and American wheat was sold to that buyer at 46 cents a bushel higher than Canadian wheat, and it was class II wheat.
The hon. member for Assiniboia quit then. Why? For political purposes and for no other reason.


Hazen Robert Argue: Quit what?


Joseph Ingolph Hetland: You quit your statement there.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not quoting from a statement at all.

Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Heiland: It does not make any difference, you left that impression. I will finish: Now, nobody is going to pay 46 cents a bushel higher if they have to put cash on the line. That is reasonable to assume.
It puts a little different light on the subject. I am going to stop picking out hon. members for criticism because when I do that I hate myself at night. I should like to deal now with our food problems. I am concerned about the problems that face our producers and I am not referring just to those in the west but rather to those all over Canada.
Last fall I met an aged couple who were farming in southern Ontario and who told me that they got up at three-thirty in the morning to milk sixteen cows by hand1 in order to have the milk out at the road by six-thirty. They had raised two sons and a daughter. The sons had left the farm to get good positions in the city and the daughter had left to get married.
Before I go any further let me say that not long ago I met an official of a company here and he told me that they were glad every time they could get a farmer's son to come to work. He said that they always found that they gave a good honest day's work and were certainly not agitators. The tendency is for farm boys to leave the farm. There is no unemployment insurance, no two or three weeks' vacation with pay, no overtime, no sick leave and no pensions for farm workers.
This aged couple told me that they had tried several times to obtain help but they could not. I asked them why they did not retire. They told me that the farm had been in the man's possession all his life and had belonged to his father and there was a certain sentimental value attached1 to it. They were planning on retiring next year and he was fattening up his cows with the idea of selling them as beef. This is happening all over. I should like to quote an article from a Saskatoon paper under date of March 12 as follows: Milk will become extremely scarce and so will butter unless current milk production declines are reversed, John S. Turnbull said today. The president of the national dairy council said the high price of beef is drawing milk-producing cows from farms and the number of dairy cows on Canadian farms now is the lowest in twenty years.
I do not think it is only the high price being paid for beef that is drawing away the dairy cows, I think the main reason is the labour situation. I am not an alarmist. I have always been told1 that I am an optimist. I believe that the union leaders of this country and the United States should not go too far in their demands for shorter hours and higher wages when production is needed so badly. Canadians in all parts of Canada must work 	|

together as a team in order to get a high standard of living and get the most out of life.


Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to depart from my general practice in speaking in the house and take part in a debate dealing with a subject about which I do not know a great deal, namely, wheat. However, I think I know something of what $65 million means to the Canadian taxpayers and as a result I feel justified in making an exception in this particular case.
To start with, I do not think that anyone who has given much consideration to the amendments before us will give them more than a passing thought as far as support is concerned. I am rather surprised that either the Progressive Conservatives or the C.C.F. would put such amendments before the house. One word in the amendment of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) that strikes me particularly is the word "mishandling". I believe that the Canadian people generally will think that is hardly a fair way to value the work that has been done on this wheat agreement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner).


James Arthur Ross: I could have made it a little worse.


John Lambert Gibson: After listening to the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night. I think the prairie farmers have been fortunate in having some of the best brains in Canada looking after the business for them. I would also point out to them that their counsel has been employed at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers. The C.C.F. amendment of course is what one would expect. It is ridiculous. When a member of the House of Commons will have such an utter disregard of his responsibilities to all the taxpayers of Canada as to suggest that we should dip into our treasury and make a payment of $335 million under the wheat agreement, it indicates to me the small amount of confidence that the Canadian people could place in members of that party.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Especially the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher).


John Lambert Gibson: I am sure that every member of the House of Commons is particularly pleased to have seen a rise in the living standards of the prairie people over past years and a reduction in the number of farm mortgages. I am glad that we were able to assist them during the disastrous thirties when they had a very tough time.


James Arthur Ross: Selling them cheap lumber.


John Lambert Gibson: Yes, they got their lumber very cheaply at that time. My friend sometimes forgets that we had a hard time in British Columbia too in the thirties. We did not put on such a poor mouth about it. As a matter of fact I think we toughed it out a little better on our own. I think my friend will probably concede that. As I say, we were glad to assist them when times were tough in the thirties. We are still glad to assist them now through the medium of the dominion-provincial tax agreements. I think they are getting a pretty good deal. However, I have not heard a member of the House of Commons say yet that he did not feel we should make a contribution to help the poor devils out there who may need a little help in times of adversity.
The farmers have always wanted stability. Now that they have got stability it seems to me that they find it profitable to repudiate their negotiators. The farmers also forget that the taxpayers of Canada made a loan to Great Britain of $1,250 million which in effect was used to buy this wheat. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night that ECA funds are involved, and it is all mixed up but the fact remains that we lent them $1,250 million. More than that was spent on wheat, and the Canadian taxpayers were very glad to make the loan for that purpose.
There has been a lot of fuss about a subsidy to the Canadian domestic market during the war. Is it forgotten that during the .var every other primary producer in Canada also subsidized the Canadian consumer? Up until 1947 we never obtained for lumber or fish anything like the world price. I know of one member of the cabinet, for instance, who until 1947 was not able to obtain any more for his product than he. received in 1939. That is true of a great many manufacturers in Canada, and I think sometimes the wheat producers forget that fact.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce said last night, the farmers elected to take out insurance. They wanted the government to put a floor price under their product. Now they are balking at paying the premium for it. Not only are they balking at paying the premium, but they want the Canadian taxpayers generally to pay the premium. Personally I do not go for that.
We hear so much about wheat in this house. There is talk about 40-cent wheat and 30cent wheat. The farmers sometimes forget that we had very low prices in British Columbia about the time when they were
Canadian Wheat Board Act getting 30 cents or 40 cents for their wheat. I can remember well fishing herring as a boy 'and delivering at the plant for one-ninth of a cent a pound. I fished salmon, and delivered it to the plant for one-third of a cent a pound. As a matter of fact wheat never got below half a cent a pound. If the farmers want to come and see how hard it is to wrestle a bushel of salmon or herring let them come out there and they will be able to judge the relative value. I tell you that your prices did not go as low as ours did at that time.
The lumbermen and fishermen elected to sell their own products. They did not want floor prices under them. Now they are asked to pay the premium for the farmers who wanted floor prices. I wonder "whether the farmers appreciate the value of holding on to a market? I wonder whether they realize that at the present time the pulp and paper companies of Canada are actually losing tens of millions of dollars every year in order to fulfil their contracts and obligations to their very good customers in the United States. If they wanted to enter the free market for pulp and paper at the present time I am sure they could sell a great deal of their product at probably $300 a ton. Of course that would net them a lot of money. But from the long-term point of view they probably feel it would not be to their advantage.
What an awful heartbreak it must be to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), and indeed to all his colleagues who have been working so hard in the last six months trying io siasn tne estimates in order to bring about economies, something to which everybody pays such great lip service, to find that $35 million has been saved and then suddenly this joker is thrown on his desk. He finds all his savings have been wiped out by a gratuitous payment to the prairie farmers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Who threw it there?


John Lambert Gibson: I do not know where it came from. I would presume from the speakers I have heard in the house that they had their share in it. I am surprised how much the government listens to the opposition. If I were in their place I do not think I would pay as much attention as they do.


George Randolph Pearkes: Who are you? Whom do you represent?


An hon. Member:: That is because you are an independent.


John Lambert Gibson: That is the great privilege I
have.


James Arthur Ross: A good old Liberal.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just the top of the fence.


John Lambert Gibson: Cabinet solidarity must be a
kind of tough proposition at times.


James Arthur Ross: It must be.


John Lambert Gibson: I would not insult the intelligence of some of my ministerial friends over there by suggesting that they all were in agreement with this $65 million payment. If they did not have cabinet solidarity I think there would be a lot of empty cabinet seats in the house today. However, I presume they decided that in the general interest of Canada they could not afford to have another government at this time and for that reason accepted this payment. The situation rather annoys me. In my riding there are some very necessary public works.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lambert Gibson: I do not see them in the estimates this year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You have got too much.


John Lambert Gibson: My good friend, the Minister
of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), has always been pretty good to the member for Comox-Alberni. He realizes the great riding I have and the necessity to provide more facilities for the people there in order to further the development of the riding. He has had to turn such propositions down this time because from the point of view of the general welfare of the country he realizes that we cannot afford unlimited government expenditures. He has saved a few dollars but then the cabinet turns around and gives away all the savings made not only on public works in my riding but in every riding throughout Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Do you blame him?


John Lambert Gibson: I think it is about time that we called a halt to government aid for everything. In the last five years it is unbelievable the number of people who have come here asking that the government support some special scheme. No matter whether we have a flood, frost, fire or whatever it is, somebody always has a private project they want to hook on the government. I hope to see the day when the cabinet will say no to some of these requests.


An hon. Member:: Let them say it to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson).


John Lambert Gibson: Personally I was never very fond of taking a free ride; but it seems to me that the government should withdraw this $65 million offer at this time.


An hon. Member:: Speaking as a Liberal?


John Lambert Gibson: I am speaking as the member for Comox-Alberni. As a taxpayer in this


country, and representing a good many taxpayers, the abuse we have had to take for handing out this money is unbelievable. When I was a young fellow that was a lot of money, but with our $4 billion budgets and all the rest of it everyone thinks $65 million is just so much hay. I think it is about time we in this house had some appreciation of what $65 million represents. It is about 10 per cent of the amount we raise in personal income tax. Just looking around this house, every member here will pay a share of this amount; each of our constituents will pay from $100 to perhaps $5,000, in the case of some of the weathy members over there, in their personal income tax in order to pay this bill to the prairie farmers. I think the Liberal farm members have done pretty well in this house on this issue; and I am speaking of the Prairie Liberals. I know the farmers were disappointed; they thought there was a Santa Claus somewhere who was going to give them ten or twelve cents as a final payment on this wheat, and they have had to accept 8-3 cents. That must be a disappointment, but I believe they have reacted in a much more responsible manner than many members of this house. Several members of the Progressive Conservative party have tried to suggest in a small way that perhaps this $65 million was plenty. The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) made an excellent speech, and that is what I rather inferred from his remarks.
It is pretty tough for the government to be on a spot like this and not have any support at all from the opposition. I never saw so much unanimity over any deal as has developed over this $65 million payment. I believe members of the opposition have a certain responsibility to their constituents, who are also taxpayers. Forget all about your party whips for a change, and just get up and express your opinion. I see the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) in his place. He has not been the kind of man who would just write off $65 million as small change. He never asked, "What is a million" or anything like that. He certainly realizes that $65 million is important to him and to his constituents. I would ask him to express his views on this matter, because I have a great regard for any opinion expressed by the hon. gentleman.


James Arthur Ross: How often have you voted with him?


John Lambert Gibson: Any time anything of substance or good sense came from the hon. member's party I have always been very glad to support it. I have one suggestion which I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should at least consider. When these cheques are made out I believe he should see to it

that they are not negotiable in either Florida or California. Thanksgiving day will come to the prairies again, I suppose. When those farmers sit down to their laden tables and offer thanks for their bountiful crops and high prices, I certainly hope they will not forget to mention Right Hon. James G. Gardiner.


Jean-François Pouliot: will ask the house to be kind enough to correct me, Mr. Speaker, if I make any errors in dealing with this complicated matter. I try to understand something about the wheat business; I have heard so much about it. The constable at the door told me many people had said they expected wheat to grow from the floor of the House of Commons, after the seed from so many able speeches had germinated in this hothouse.
Every matter can be simplified to a certain extent. What is actually owed the western farmers for their wheat? It is not $1.83 a bushel. It is a good sum, $1.78 and a fraction, perhaps $1,788 if we add the amount held in reserve. What is asked of the government is a supplementary amount of approximately '4J cents. The intention of the government is to pay the western farmer an average price of $1.83 for 1,428 million bushels of wheat. Then the total returns to the western farmers for the five year period will be $2,613,240,000. If that is divided as between the five years it will mean an average of $522,648,000 per annum. There is a figure I have not at hand; I did not get it from the year book. I would like any hon. member from the west to tell me what is the farming population of the west.


Mr. Sinnott:: 400,000.


An hon. Member:: Make sure of your authority.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I take it under caution. I did not have time to check the figure, but if my hon. friend is right the amount of $522,648,000 should be divided by 400,000 to learn the average income per year of the western farmer.


An hon. Member:: From wheat.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, from wheat alone, not counting other sources of revenue such as orchards in California, fruit groves in Florida and so on.


Mr. Quelch:: Oil wells in Alberta.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is substantial; that is a half a billion dollars to be divided amongst
400,000	people. It is much more than the average farmer in the east would ever get.


Victor Quelch: That would be the gross payment, not net.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) tell me the exact number of farmers in the west?.


Victor Quelch: No, I say the income would be gross income, not net income.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh yes, indeed, including expenses. The gross income of the eastern farmer is far from being as much as that, although the eastern farmer does not practise mechanized farming to such an extent. I will ask any hon. gentleman if the figure given a minute ago of 400,000 farmers in the west is correct.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Ask the Minister of Agriculture.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want to impose a question on anyone, but I ask that as a service to facilitate me in continuing with the discussion.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are about 250,000 wheat farmers in the west.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the average of half a billion dollars should be divided by 260,000 people in order to calculate the average income of each gentleman farmer of the west. I say that quite seriously because I have a high regard for the western farmer. He grows a type of food that is essential to our country as well as to many other countries in the world. Therefore, sir, this is it. Everyone may make the calculation and know exactly what the problem is in black and white, meaning ink and paper.
If the government withdraws the bill and pays nothing in addition to the dividend that is going to be paid by the pool, then the farmers will not have an average of $522 million, and the total return will not be $2,613 million, but it will be $2,413,264,000 to be divided amongst 260,000 farmers in the west. This is gross income, and these gentlemen have to pay for the oil, machinery, twine, et cetera, but they must get a living out of it. I am not criticizing anyone, but I am giving to everyone, members of the cabinet and private members, the benefit of the doubt. This makes my position still more embarrassing.
When I was young I recall that the children who were playing outside or who had just returned from school usually came in hungry at mealtime. When I asked my grandmother for something other than what was on the table she used to tell me, "My boy, you do not seem to be hungry. Put on your pajamas and go to bed." Why? Because I was asking for too much, so I had to go to bed without a meal. We were brought up like that. I am not telling anything new. If the hon. gentlemen of the opposition are not satisfied with the generous offer of the

Canadian Wheat Board Act government, the only thing for the government to do is to say, "You do not like it, so you will go without it; we will .withdraw our bill." No one will be worse off, and everyone will be happy. There will be a feeling of relief throughout the country. You do not want it. You do not find it good enough, so you will not have it. You still have the money coming from the pool, so be satisfied with it. I hope the government will accept that suggestion, and the discussion will end there. We will save money, and we have to save money for something. We have to save money for a subsidy on the transportation of coarse grain from the west to the east. It is much more important to the farmers of the east than an additional subsidy of four and a half cents may be to the farmers of the west. We have to fight for it. We are told it will only last until July 31, but we want it the year round. It is vital. The other day the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) asked a timely question about it.
I come now to the amendment, as I am speaking on it. It is unfair and unjust to the government. It mentions the mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I have mentioned only the benefits derived by the western farmers for wheat, which represents a substantial sum. In addition, there are their other sources of income, yet they are not satisfied. When will they be satisfied? If I were the member for a western constituency I would tell my constituents, "Be reasonable; you have got enough at the expense of the other provinces of Canada." The provinces of Quebec and Ontario are paying eighty per cent of the taxes paid in Canada. We will have to pay for it, yet the farmers of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan are crying for an additional payment the same as babies cry for Castoria. They are never satisfied, never contented. When I asked for seed grain for the settlers in my county, I .was told they could not get any. No seed grain for the settlers of Temiscouata, but bonuses for the farmers in the west. We have had enough of that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is the hon. member speaking for the Liberal party?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking for the western members, who are quite genial personally but who are too exacting when it comes to amounts of that kind.


Charles Edward Johnston: They will look after themselves. Is the hon. member speaking for the Liberal party?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking on behalf of the Liberal party any more than my hon. friend speaks for the Social Credit party. I am


a private member and a Liberal, and what I say to the house I say for the benefit of the government as well as to see that my hon. friend's constituents do not get too much. They should get only what they are entitled to have.
I am not going to speak any longer about it. I have said what I thought sincerely, and I have tried to explain the situation so that those who read Hansard will understand something about it. But to say that the government has mishandled the situation through the wheat board or through any other agency or to say that it has been mishandled by my friend Jimmie MacKinnon or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), under whose jurisdiction the wheat board comes, is a sovereign injustice. If I were speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, I know what I would do; but I have no power of attorney. You, Mr. Speaker, know what I would say; and I mean it.


Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should allow this bill to pass without adding my observations with regard to it. It is something that profoundly touches the constituency from which I come. I cannot exactly subscribe to the views of my colleague the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), possibly on account of my geographical position. There are also other grounds on which I do not agree with him.
In scanning my Hansard-I was out of the house for a day or so-I note here and there pronouncements by some hon. members opposite. One that seemed to me to have some humour attached to it was made by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) who, as the house knows, was for a short time a tutor of mine; and I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that he was a good one. He made an observation which I believe is profound. It was to the effect that the Liberals of Saskatchewan-this was some little while ago-had been maintaining an intelligent silence. That immediately suggests an alternative. To my way of thinking the alternative would be an unintelligent speech. After noting the remarks of my good friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) who observed, I think on Thursday last, that the members of the Liberal party of Saskatchewan had promised, in the election campaign, that they would bring back a large final payment on the five-year pool, it would seem to me that the remark made by the hon. member for Saskatoon would apply to his colleague. Possibly he has some material that he can work on over there in

starting up a class in this intelligent silence. As far as I am concerned, the people in my riding know what I said during the election campaign, and I will let it go at that.
Following up the remark made by the hon. member for Saskatoon, to the effect that the Liberal members had been maintaining an intelligent silence, I cannot say that the infrequency of my speeches in the house has anything to do with the training I received at his hands, inasmuch as he taught me for only a short while. But previously, when I was at possibly a more impressionable age, I had a teacher who in class used to make the remark that the weakest lion makes the loudest roar. After observing this house through some three sessions, this remark started to gather weight with me. There are many speeches made here that possibly would have been better left unmade; and even the man who made one of them would later be the most likely to want his speech withdrawn, if that were possible. I hope that does not occur with regard to this speech of mine.
Having made those general observations I want to say with regard to this bill before us now that I am pleased with the provisions that are in it, and I wish to thank the government for bringing it down. The broad coverage that it gives and especially the third part of it which provides that the final payment can be made to the farmers immediately after the end of the crop year will, I have no doubt, be appreciated in my riding.
As to the final payment on the five-year pool, I was pleased with the pronouncement in the house last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Although the opposition tried to show that it was something different than the opinion held by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) also, I cannot see that they are so very far apart. If you take the pronouncement of the Prime Minister himself, some three or four days earlier, in reply to a question put on the order paper by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), you will find that he stated the government's position fairly concisely with regard to Britain's obligations under this contract. As reported at page 1023 of Hansard he said:
The government has taken the position that while there was no further obligation on the United Kingdom in a legal sense, the United Kingdom authorities should realize that the wheat growers of Canada and most of the community of the prairie provinces believed there was a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause which had not been discharged.
I think the Prime Minister is perfectly right there, because the people of western
Canadian Wheat Board Act Canada, or the wheat growers there, believe there is a continuing obligation by the British government. Possibly it is not a legal obligation under the wording of the contract, but it is one that has been recognized by various ministers of that government, including Mr. Strachey and also Mr. Cripps. But those gentlemen have apparently changed their minds; and under the legal terms of the agreement, that is perfectly all right. There is no reason why they should not. As to blaming Great Britain, I would say this. The government there are in a position where they must save dollars if they can do so. I am a Britisher myself, and I can agree that they have always been tough traders. But had the Right Hon. Winston Churchill been in power over there, while he might have driven a tough bargain, I still believe that he would have had some regard to this "have regard to" clause and would not have left it unhonoured entirely.


Percy Ellis Wright: Why did they, in the election campaign, criticize the government for paying too much for wheat, if that is the case?


John Hornby Harrison: The position taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia in that regard is this, as reported at page 1149 of Hansard:
The government, since June 5 of last year, has done nothing, and there was nothing it could do to re-open a contract that had already been settled and finalized by both parties to that contract.
He made that statement four days after he had the actual answer given by the Prime Minister as reported at page 1023. of Hansard. Four days earlier the Prime Minister said, as I put on Hansard a few minutes ago:
The government has taken the position that while there was no further obligation on the United Kingdom in a legal sense, the United Kingdom authorities should realize that the wheat growers of Canada and most of the community of the prairie provinces believed there was a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause which had not been discharged.
6. Such representations were made by the Prime Minister in January and by the Minister of Agriculture in February, 1951.
That was an answer to his own question, so be knew when he made it that the statement he made four days later was not correct.
But there were other negotiations on this same "have regard to" clause between the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Attlee here in Ottawa. Even before that, I think the Minister of Agriculture had some talks in October or November with another minister of the British crown with regard to this matter.
At one time even Sir Stafford Cripps did admit owing something in the neighbourhood of $70 million under this "have regard to"

Canadian Wheat Board Act clause. Had they implemented the clause to that effect it would have meant 5 cents, and we would have had a payment in the pool of something in the neighbourhood of 13 cents. For all that it would have cost Great Britain the farmers of western Canada wouldi have appreciated it greatly, because the farmers out there take this position. They have done their share toward providing Britain during times gone by with loans and free gifts of money to a very large extent. Although the farmers did not begrudge giving it at the time and certainly as a Briton myself, had I been in the house at that time I would definitely have voted for those loans and those gifts; at the same time, you cannot get away from the fact that the farmers of the west have in the back of their heads that Britain owes some moral obligation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Who put it there?


John Hornby Harrison: It is too bad that that situation exists, because trade is a two-way street. We are going to want to sell to Britain in future years, and we want to keep on good terms with the British people. The British want to sell products in western Canada. I just hope that this feeling in the backs of the minds of the peoples of the west-I do not care what party you are from, that situation does exist in the minds of the people out there-will not be a detriment so far as the sale of British goods is concerned.
The subamendment moved by the C.C.F. is one of the reasons why I rose in my place to speak. This subamendanent does not meet with my approval for some very good reasons. Firstly, they take two positions here. One is that the British government owes us nothing, not even a moral obligation. The second position they take directly in the subamendment is that the people of Canada owe, on behalf of Great Britain, or of the food given to Great Britain, $350 million. Well, on the face of it we are 53 members from the prairie provinces, including all parties. For somebody to introduce a subamendment suggesting that this house of some 262 members should pay out of the public treasury $350 million'-well, you know before you start that we just do not have a leg to stand on. The other 209 members have to go back to their constituencies and justify the payment of $350 million. They know and we know that they just cannot do it. Put yourself in their shoes. The first man you would meet when you return would say to you: You voted for $350 million, and at the same time the payment of $65 million that has been made-


Percy Ellis Wright: Will the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


John Hornby Harrison: Yes.
	,


Percy Ellis Wright: There are $115 million that the government is already paying, the $65 million and what is already in the pool. But the hon. member keeps saying that we are asking for $350 million. All we are asking for is $235 million in addition to what is already in the pool.


John Hornby Harrison: You are taking into consideration the fact that they have already put in>
$65 million.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


John Hornby Harrison: But you are asking altogether for a payment of $350 million.


Percy Ellis Wright: No, not over and above what is already in the pool.


John Hornby Harrison: What is in the pool?


Percy Ellis Wright: There is already some $60 million.


John Hornby Harrison: In your $235 million you are taking into consideration, that the government has already advanced $65 million.


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


John Hornby Harrison: That is a different thing. But over all you are suggesting the payment of $350 million with what is in the pool.


Percy Ellis Wright: Not over and above what is in the pool, with what is in the pool.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Hornby Harrison: The treasury is still going
to have to bring down, even on your figures, something under $300 million, and that is quite a figure for hon. members to justify. I am speaking of the 209 members who are not from the prairie provinces. That is a rather tough thing for them to justify when they go home. Naturally, coming from the prairie provinces, we would gladly receive a payment of that kind; but when you move a subamendment that suggests that this house pay $350 million to the farmers in the west for grain sent to Britain, you know that you have not a chance to put it through. And I class that immediately as just a political move. Since it is a political move I am going to vote against the subamendment on those grounds.
Reviewing the contract itself, I am fairly well satisfied with the payment of $65 million. I can tell you that I told that to my farmers before Christmas. I had very few advocate to me that they should get anything over 10 cents. I know that 10 cents would have satisfied all of them. With respect to the 8-3 cents, some people may be a little dissatisfied, but the average of these people is sensible, and they are going to realize that 8-3 cents is a fair payment, and is a far better proposition than suggesting to this

house that we pay them 25 cents when you know you cannot get that at all, because all you would do in that case would be to go home with nothing. I am sure they would rather have 8-3 cents than nothing.
The payment and the contract as a whole are fairly satisfactory to me, and the payment of $1.83 per bushel over a five-year period is the best five-year price that we have ever had in western Canada. I will go this much further and say that I have no doubt the farmers in my riding would be tickled to death right now to sign another five-year contract if they could sign one for $1.83 a bushel for the next five years, with the prospect that possibly they might get something a little better than that under our present marketing system. But at the same time I think most of them would be satisfied to have a guaranteed price of $1.83 a bushel for the next five years.
There have been some attempts by various opposition members to tell us what the farmers have lost. These figures run all the way from $70 million to $1 billion. The very discrepancy in those figures, all the way from $70 million to $1 billion, would show that there is something wrong with the argument some place or the figures would be much closer together.
Anybody who quotes those excessive figures is, in my opinion, trying to discredit our present system of marketing. I think that all members from the west will agree that we do not want anything to happen to the present stable system of marketing.
In other words, anybody who uses large figures of that kind is talking about a market that is not an orderly system of marketing. He is talking of the most extreme profits that you can make under a system of grain exchange marketing, and he is giving comfort to those people who believe in that kind of a system. If the wheat that we have sold under this contract had been sold under that system it would have been sold for much more money than the farmers have got for it. If the wheat had been sold for $2.83 per bushel the farmer still would not have got $1.83. All the extra profit would have gone where it always went under that system, down the drain of the grain exchange. We do not want a recurrence of that.
I am pleased with the way this five year contract has worked out and I think the farmers of my riding generally will appreciate the payment of 8-3 cents that is being made. However, they have not been able to get out of their heads the idea that there is some moral obligation on Great Britain to make a small further payment, even though it is only a token payment. That would have
Canadian Wheat Board Act been some indication or admission that there was some obligation. The fact that there was some admission by Great Britain in this regard is borne out by the fact that when the Prime Minister of England was here last fall and talking with our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) he agreed that the situation should be reopened. If he had thought there was no obligation he would not have agreed that the proposition should be reopened. I think Britain was a little ill-advised not to make some slight recompense.
We are fairly well satisfied with the $65 million, although we would have liked to have had a payment of 10 or 12 cents per bushel. I think the payment of $65 million will fill the bill fairly well. It is something that members from other sections of the country can justify. There must be a little give and take in this house if we are going to make this country tick. We cannot always consider just our own sections and hope to get all that we require. In order to make Canada a real Canada there has to be some give and take. When other parts of Canada need support, as they have in the past when there have been fires and floods, they will find the western members right behind them and ready to help.


Percy Ellis Wright: The hon. member states that
when Prime Minister Attlee was here last year he agreed to the reopening of negotiations. That is the first I have heard of that and I wonder on what authority the hon. member makes that statement.


John Hornby Harrison: I think at that time Mr. Attlee agreed that there should be a reopening of the negotiations. If you go back to Hansard of March 8 you will see that such representations were made by the Prime Minister in January, and by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in February. That was definitely stated in the press of that date because I can remember reading it. It was said that Mr. Attlee had discussed the wheat situation with the Prime Minister and they were going to discuss it further when the Prime Minister was in Great Britain.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce did not make that statement last night.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS
CANADIAN-MONTANA PIPE LINE COMPANY Mr. C. E. Bennett (Grey North) moved the second reading of Bill No. 117, to incorporate Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company.
1208	HOUSE OF
Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company
Mr. Green:: Will the hon. member explain, please?


Mr. Bennett:: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 117 is an act to incorporate Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company under the general pipe line legislation passed by this parliament. The object of the company is the construction of a pipe line from the southeastern portion of the province of Alberta to the Montana border to meet an existing pipe line there. The pipe line will carry natural gas and will be approximately thirty-six miles in length. The incorporators named in the bill are the principal executive officers of the McColl-Frontenac Oil Company Limited and of the Montana Power Company of Butte, Montana. McColl-Frontenac Oil Company Limited of course is well known in Canada. The Montana Power Company is a public utility company which since 1931 has been distributing natural gas to domestic, commercial and industrial users in that state.
One of the chief, in fact the chief, industrial customer of this company is the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, which, as hon. members know, is a very important contributor of base metals so essential at this time.
From 1941 until last year approximately fifty wells were drilled in the area to which I have referred, and as a result four relatively small natural gas fields were proven in what is known as the Pakowki lake district. The most northerly, called the Manyberries field, lies within thirty miles of the United States-Canadian border, and the most southerly called Black Butte within a mile and a half of the Alberta-Montana border.
The opinion is held that the taking of gas from the Pakowki district will not particularly affect Alberta's supply inasmuch as these fields represent a small fraction indeed of the total Alberta reserves, and inasmuch also as they constitute a fixed limited quantity. We are not dealing here with a speculative venture. These fields are under the control of the incorporators. This application therefore will differ from those of other companies that hope to export to expanding markets, and therefore the quantities necessary for those companies will be much larger.
In any event the purpose of this bill is merely to incorporate a company. If the bill is passed and the company is incorporated it will be subject to the decisions of, and the usual safeguards provided by, the several regulatory bodies. Hon. members are familiar with these safeguards. I shall only enumerate them. First, under the general Pipe Lines Act the board of transport commissioners was authorized to regulate interprovincial or international pipe lines. Second, before gas


can be exported a permit must be obtained from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) under the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act. Third, before gas can be exported from Alberta a permit must be obtained from the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board. Several applications have been made to that board and are still pending.
Therefore if this company is incorporated parliament will only be giving the company the same chance it has given other companies, -the chance to prove its case, to fight it out with these other companies and to show that the building of the proposed pipe line is for the benefit of Canada. I submit that only if there are a number of companies in competition presenting a variety of routes and schemes will Canadians be assured that what is finally decided upon will be in the best interests of our country.
The bill contains the same clauses and provisions, and is in the same form, as other pipe line bills which have been considered by this house from time to time. Detailed information and expert evidence will be available to the committee to which the bill is referred.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the passage of the bill for very long, and I think I should say at the beginning that I do not intend to oppose passage of it at the second reading stage at any rate. Coming from southern Alberta, and having read the proceedings before the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board involving this particular company, with deference I think I am probably as familiar with the project, what it is intended to do and the other factors involved, as anyone in the house.
There are a few facts which I think should be put before the house with respect to the company. The first is that the field from which it is intended to take the gas is in the very southern part of Alberta. It is a comparatively small field sometimes known as Pendant d'Oreille but more generally as Pakowki lake field. I believe the total amount of gas estimated to be there is in the neighbourhood of four hundred billion cubic feet.
Representations made before the Alberta petroleum and natural gas conservation board on behalf of this company were to the effect that probably the only place this gas could ever be marketed would be to this Montana Company which would like to pipe the gas a comparatively short distance to connect with the Montana grid system. There may be a considerable amount of truth in that argument.

There are, however, three other places where the gas may be used and may be required. The Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company whose bill was before the house the other day, and who presented their case before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, gave a certain amount of evidence with respect to the use of this field. The effect of it was that they felt they needed this field if their project to build a pipe line from Alberta to Toronto and Montreal went through. I asked several questions in connection with the use of this field because I knew this bill was coming up, and the officials of the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company gave evidence that they hoped and intended to take about forty million cubic feet a day out of this field if their project was approved and went through. They did say under questioning, also, that no field in Alberta was absolutely essential to their project with the exception of Pincher Creek field; but they felt they would probably need the gas in this field as a reserve, at least at present.
In addition another company which obtained a charter some time ago, the Western Pipe Lines Company, whose project is to pipe gas from Alberta to Winnipeg through Moose Jaw, Regina and the other cities along that route, look upon this field as more or less essential to that project. Whether or not it is essential I do not know, but at any rate they feel this field would be essential to their development which, of course, is primarily to serve western Canadian cities.
There is a third possibility for the use of this gas; that is, by the city of Calgary and the southern part of Alberta served by the Calgary Gas Company. My understanding is that the Calgary Gas Company does not require this gas at the present time, but unless other reserves are developed it may be that some time in the future it will require it.
I do not suggest that these people who have developed the Pakowki lake field, who have drilled wells and spent a considerable amount of money in developing these gas reserves, should be held up indefinitely because at some time in the future that gas may be required by someone else. However, when this bill is considered by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, I do believe the factors I have mentioned very briefly this evening should be gone into carefully. They may have an extremely important bearing upon whether or not this charter should be granted. I have no doubt, of course, that these matters will be considered carefully if the charter is granted and the company makes application to the Alberta
13, 1951
Border Pipeline Corporation conservation board. My position last year was and still is that in considering these pipe line charters the members of this house have a duty and responsibility to the people of Canada as a whole to carefully look into the proposition put forward, to consider its feasibility and whether or not it is going to be in the best interests of the country as a whole. So I believe the three possible uses to which this gas might be put other than sending it across to Montana essentially, as I think the sponsor said, for the use of the Anaconda Copper Company, should be gone into by the committee and given a good deal of attention.
As I said in the beginning, I do not intend to hold up the bill or to oppose the motion for second reading. However, I would like more information on these points from the officials of this company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 118, to incorporate Border Pipeline Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the continuing discoveries of oil in the province of Alberta have brought to the fore various proposals for the construction of an oil pipe line from the province of Alberta to the Pacific coast. The discussion of this project has been accelerated by certain considerations of national security in the United States and Canada. At the present time oil for Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, as well as that used in Portland, Seattle and the northwestern part of the United States, is furnished largely by tanker from the state of California. In the event of a war the supply of oil from California might not be sufficient to continue to service these markets, thus making it desirable to call upon the large resources of Alberta in this connection. Furthermore, the hazards of transportation of oil by tanker during a war also indicate the desirability of a pipe line as a means of providing oil to these markets.
In the light of these considerations this application is being made to parliament for the incorporation of a company under the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act with authority to construct and operate an oil pipe line. It is proposed that this line will commence in the vicinity of Edmonton in central Alberta and run south in that province, then parallel to the Canadian Pacific Railway through the Crowsnest pass to Cranbrook and Kingsgate
1210	HOUSE OF
Border Pipeline Corporation in British Columbia where it will cross the border and proceed southwest to Spokane along the route of the Spokane International Railway. The route of the pipe line then runs west across the flat plains of the state of Washington, through Steven's pass and the Cascade mountains to Monroe and Seattle, from which point the line divides in two directions. One section of the line runs north 115 miles to Vancouver, and another section 190 miles south to Portland.
The applicants have entered into negotiations with United States and Canadian oil companies which have interests in the province of Alberta to supply the necessary oil to maintain the pipe line. It is also expected that they will obtain commitments to build sufficient refining capacity in Vancouver and in Seattle and Portland to market the "throughput" of the pipe line. The pipe line will have an initial "throughput" of 100,000 barrels per day and would have a capacity in excess of 150,000 barrels per day. The line will be a common carrier available to any producer who wishes to transport oil.
The applicants have entered into arrangements with prominent Canadian and United States investment firms which have indicated their willingness to undertake the financing of the pipe line through the sale to the public of the securities involved, both in Canada and the United States.
It is believed that the proposed pipe line, because of the lower cost of construction on the route proposed as opposed to any other suggested route and because of the wider market afforded by the sale in United States cities along the suggested route, will provide oil in the cities of Vancouver and New Westminster at a lower price per barrel than could be provided under the terms of any *competing project. It is on this basis that the applicants seek the right to have their plan for the construction of the pipe line placed before the board of transport commissioners and as a first step to have the company incorporated under the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that by reason of the Pipe Lines Act which was enacted in 1949 parliament has said to any person who wishes authority to construct or operate pipe lines that he must come to parliament and make application for a special act. I believe our function under the overall act is quite clear; it is to grant or refuse incorporation. Once incorporation has been granted, questions of route and other matters must be decided by the board of transport commissioners. The company cannot begin construction of the line until the board has granted leave. Similarly, no line can be


opened for the transportation of oil or gas until leave has been obtained from the board. Therefore these present applicants are only doing what parliament has indicated, they must do. They are coming to parliament to seek incorporation.
In 1949 five pipe line companies were incorporated, and in/the 1950 session there were	two others. At this session I
believe there are seven applications under	the Pipe Lines Act. At the
present time companies to which this parliament has already granted incorporation have two applications for the construction of oil lines and four applications for the construction of .gas lines pending before the board of transport commissioners. If incorporation is granted in this case, and I hope it will be granted if we .are to avoid, discrimination, this company will then proceed to make its application to the board of transport commissioners. It will then be in a position to compete with other companies already incorporated or to be incorporated, for the right to construct and operate a pipe line. The applicants fully realize that they will only be successful in that competition if they are able to convince the board that their project is the most advantageous from a Canadian point of view.
Mr. Speaker, I have made my explanation as brief as possible. I would be very happy to answer any questions of a general nature when closing the debate. Expert witnesses will be available before the committee to answer questions of a technical nature.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the hon. member one question for the sake of clarification? Is it proposed that this pipe line will run through any part of the Fraser valley? If it does not, I think you are in trouble.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeking incorporation of the Border Pipeline Corporation represents the second occasion on which there has been before the house a bill to incorporate a company which proposes to transport oil from the fields of Alberta to the Pacific coast. The first one came before us last week when a bill was introduced by the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing). Last session, and the session before, we did have a number of bills from companies seeking incorporation who desired to build gas pipe lines from the prairies to the coast. This is the first session at which we have had 'bills to incorporate companies building oil pipe lines. But, Mr. Speaker, the principle which should be followed with regard to the use to be made of these Canadian resources, which is that, when works of major national importance are to be built to transport Canadian natural

resources to the market, they should be so constructed as to be of a maximum benefit to Canada, is I think the same in the case of both oil and gas pipe lines. The controversy which was before this house during the past two years in connection with gas pipe lines, therefore, is exactly the same as the controversy which will undoubtedly surround the application to incorporate this company.
The hon. member who introduced the bill said something to the effect that his company maintains that the route they have chosen to the Pacific coast via the United States will be the cheapest route to construct. I do not agree that we have had any figures which would warrant one in coming to that conclusion. Against the hon. member who introduced this bill I would set the member for Vancouver South and the great construction company-so he described it and I have no reason to doubt his description-which he states is to build the pipe line for his company. This company has had a great deal of engineering experience, not only in Canada and the United States but all over the world. It has investigated the routes from the prairies to the markets to be served on the Pacific, and has decided that the route through the Yellowhead pass, down through the centre of British Columbia to the Pacific coast, is a feasible and economic route for this pipe line to follow. Mr. Speaker, if one investigates the history of pipe line construction, and if one were to remember the things that were said in this house during the main session of 1950 concerning the impossibility of building a pipe line through the Yellowhead pass, through the centre of British Columbia to Vancouver and then into the United States, one could not help but be struck by the lack of information upon which those statements were based.
In his speech during the introduction of his bill the member for Vancouver South alluded to the history of the company which proposes to build that line, and its construction of pipe lines in Iran and the Middle East. If you look at those pipe lines and the altitudes that they reach during their course from the oil fields to the seaport, you will find that they go over mountain passes considerably higher than anything on the route of the Yellowhead pass and along the Hope-Princeton route to Vancouver. I understand that the pipe lines in the Middle East, in Iran particularly, reach altitudes of between
6,000	and 7,000 feet. There would be nothing like those altitudes on the route through the Yellowhead, so there is no reason, either because of the physical geography or economic conditions due to the difficulty of
Border Pipeline Corporation construction, which would mean that the pipe line seeking to bring Alberta oil to the Pacific coast need be built, or should be built, for the major part of its length through the United States.
We who took the position in the past, and who also take the position today, that in using these Canadian resources the maximum benefit must be preserved to Canada, were encouraged when the first pipe-line company to come before this house for incorporation this year adopted a Canadian route. We were also encouraged by the support which appears to be building up for the principle of Canada first, not only in this house but throughout the country. We recall of course that when we first asserted that principle-and I am looking of course at my good friend the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) who took such a part in the fight for Canada first; the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green); and the members for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) and Yale (Mr. Jones)- the use of the term "filibuster" was applied to the efforts we made to impress upon this house and the country the importance of the principle which we were asserting. It is a fact which the reading of Hansard will verify that our efforts were greeted with-well, at first derision. I do not think that is too strong a word to use. Certainly every pressure was put upon us to end that filibuster. Every effort was made to have us withdraw our opposition to those companies seeking to export Canada's gas first to the United States and to build the route through the United States. We are therefore happy indeed, Mr. Speaker, that we have made such a large number of converts, if I may put it that way.
We recall that when the matter was held up last in the House of Commons and full discussion was insisted upon, as more and more members entered the controversy-not only members from British Columbia but members from other parts of Canada not immediately affected by the pipe line itself- it became apparent that a great national principle was at stake. That national principle had its recognition, I think, in the resolution that was moved the other day in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and was adopted unanimously by that committee, to amend the provisions of a proposed bill to incorporate one of these pipe line companies to provide that "the main pipe line or lines either for the transmission or transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada." That was an amendment moved on March 8 by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and unanimously

Border Pipeline Corporation adopted in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. That, Mr. Speaker, represents almost a revolution in thought as compared with what we saw in this house and in that same committee just last year. I should like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to those of my colleagues who took such a prominent part in carrying on that fight in the interests of the Canadian people.
I have dealt with that matter in these few sentences because I think it is important to remember that exactly the same issue is now before the house: that is, whether we shall grant our approval to bills which seek to incorporate companies which have as their avowed aim and object in the construction of a line to transport this resource to the market, that it shall go immediately and directly into the United States, and then through the United _ States for the greater portion of its length on its way to that market, with merely a branch or spur line back up to Canada to serve the market on the Canadian portion of the Pacific coast.
I will not say much at this stage in connection with the potential benefits which would flow to the cities in the interior of British Columbia, if the pipe line were built by a route through the central portion of the province, but which will be denied to us if it goes through the United States, because perhaps the situation with respect to oil is slightly different from the situation with respect to gas. No one can say definitely that it would be possible to tap the oil from the main pipe line and serve the communities through which that line passes. But neither can anyone say that it would be impossible. No one knows what the economic development of our province may be in the near future. No one knows the tremendous bounds forward which we may make. Those communities have been growing-many of them have doubled their population since just before the last war. They have been growing at an amazing rate. It may well be that before many more years go by there will be in the interior portion of our province a market sufficient to justify some plants, at any rate, to deal with this crude oil which will be flowing through the pipe lines. The importance of having that line through Canada becomes obvious, so that Canadian cities and communities will be in a position to derive the maximum benefit not only from the construction of the line but from the very presence of the line and the proximity of the resource which it carries.
I think we would be betraying our trust and be derelict in the duty that we owe to the Canadian people if we did not put forth every effort to make certain that these advantages are not forever lost to Canada and

forever secured to another country. On that basis I do not see that there is any course open to us-particularly to those who took the same stand in connection with the gas pipe lines-but to oppose the incorporation of a company such as this which proposes to follow the route which has just been set forth by the hon. member who introduced the bill in this house.
Not only does the fact that the line should be located within our country become a matter of great importance to the future development of that section of the country, but also the benefit which would follow from the construction of the line itself is a matter which this house should not allow itself to lose sight of. After all, it stands to reason that, if a company which is controlled by American capital obtains a-charter to build this line for the major portion of its length through the United States, it will employ Americans to build it, it will use American steel, and all the benefits of construction and maintenance, including roads which must be built in order for them to lay the line, will go to the United States; whereas if we have the foresight and the determination to insist that these benefits shall be preserved for Canada, then we would have those benefits to contribute to the economic development of this country.
There is at least a possibility if not a probability that, under the policy I am advocating, Canadian steel would be used in the construction of the line. Certainly it must be a fact that Canadian men would be employed in the construction of the line through Canada whereas Americans would be employed in the construction of the line through the United States. The same thing applies with respect to the pumping plants and the maintenance plant. These pipe lines require pumping stations at frequent points along their length. Each pumping station requires men to maintain it, to run it and to supervise it. Then there are the line men working on the maintenance and the regular inspection of the line itself. Are these men to be Americans or are they to be Canadians having the advantage of the employment which follows from the development of a Canadian resource? Surely hon. members of this Canadian House of Commons, this Canadian parliament, can come to no other conclusion than that these benefits and these advantages should flow to the country which they serve and whose people elected them as their representatives here to look after their interests. Hon. members can be quite certain that if they do not insist that this line and1 any other line be built through Canada first, so that the resource shall serve Canada first, then those benefits will flow to the United States and

will be forever denied to this country, with the consequent result of even further magnifying the disproportion which now exists between the economic development of the United States and that of Canada.
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I am content to rest my case; and I appeal to this House of Commons, which showed that it is sensitive to public opinion and which, as a matter of fact, I think showed a good deal of patience when, last year, we were advocating principles to which at that time the majority of the members were not sympathetic. I do appeal now to hon. members of this house, since I am encouraged to believe they appreciate more fully the importance of the principle of the national interest to be served, to assert themselves on this occasion in the interests of Canada in connection with this line, and refuse to give their consent to the incorporation of any company which does not give its undertaking to build its line in such a way that it will serve Canada first.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which clock is right, but in case the two clocks are not right and my watch is-


Mr. Sinclair:: Look at the calendar.


George Alexander Cruickshank: As happened last year, Mr. Speaker, I am to get a certain amount of moral support in my effort not only for the people of my riding on the Pacific coast but for my colleagues who adjoin it.
We are reasonably fortunate in this house that we have some people who not only understand oil, gas lines and wells, but have oil wells. I never owned an oil well. Possibly if I had an oil well there would be a gas well beside it. I understand that some individuals own wells in Alberta. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think we should broaden the laws of Canada in order that they could compete on an equal basis with those equally fortunate in other lands who have oil wells. I hold in my hand a clipping. I understand it was published in Toronto. But unlike some other clippings that were produced, this one has the date on it. It is a clipping from the Globe and Mail and is dated March 12, 1951. The reason I am bringing this up, Mr. Speaker, is that I want those who own oil wells in Canada to be just as fortunate as others who own oil wells. The heading of this clipping is:
Sheik of Araby collects $40,000 daily from oil-rich desert
If the sheik of Araby can have that, there is no reason why any hon. member or anybody else could not have one in Alberta or
Border Pipeline Corporation Saskatchewan, and even in Ontario. But I want to make clear what goes with an oil well. I quote:
An Arab sheik who reigns over a 50-by-70-mile sandy waste called Kuwait on the hot and humid Persian gulf rakes in tax free every day some $40,000 in oil royalties.
The money-in rupees-rolls into the private bank accounts of 55-year old Sheik Abdulla Al-Salim Al-Sabah.
Sheik Abdulla is a genuine sheik. He lives in a palace-
This is the point, Mr. Speaker. I want my colleagues who may be fortunate enough to own oil wells in other parts of the world to have the same privilege. 1 want them to have not only $40,000 a day-but wait until I read the rest of what he has:
Sheik Abdulla is a genuine sheik. He lives in a palace, has a harem and wears the flowing white, gold-embroidered kaffiyeh of the desert Arab.
I do not see any reason why anyone owning an oil well in Alberta should not have all of the privileges of the sheik of Araby.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: All of them? [DOT]


George Alexander Cruickshank: I will admit that we westerners would be in a more fortunate position than some from the central provinces in caring for a harem in more ways than one.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker said, we were accused of staging what they called a filibuster in connection with pipe lines. Those of us who took part in the debate felt that we were unfairly accused of carrying on a filibuster, but we are extremely proud of the fact that we took part in those debates, and I shall tell you why. We are proud of the fact, if for no other reason than that certain of my colleagues both from the glorious province . that I come from and even from the lesser provinces now realize the fact so eloquently portrayed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) the other night when he introduced a bill, backed 1 presume by very responsible people, if I understood him correctly, and I think I did. I congratulated him when he introduced his bill the other night and I do so again tonight for the same reason, namely, that he implied, and I have every reason to believe he will back it up when it comes before the committee, that the amendment referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) would be accepted. It is of such vital importance that I shall put it on the record again. This is the amendment moved last year by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green):
Provided that the main pipe line or lines, either for the transmission or transportation of oil or gas, shall be located entirely within Canada.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all that we are interested in. I had better take a moment
1214

Border Pipeline Corporation to congratulate the sponsor of the bill tonight on the excellent attempt he made in putting a very poor case before the members of this house. If he will say tonight that he will adopt the amendment, go further than that and have it inserted into his bill, as one company has done already owing to the magnificent effort of a few of us last year, providing for an all-Canadian route, there would be no difficulty about it.
Some of my colleagues may not as yet appreciate what Canada means nOw or what it could mean in the future. I am going to read all of this, Mr. Speaker, before I am through this session. I do not know of any better authority that I can quote when speaking, particularly in this house, but in so far as I am concerned, when speaking before the people anywhere in Canada, than our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I will be glad to quote him in full but I do not want to take up too much time tonight, Mr. Speaker. I shall quote a part of his remarks as follows:	.
It is not only the people of Quebec and New Brunswick who have deplored the fact that the Canadian Pacific had to run through Maine to get to New Brunswick: that was something which concerned the people of the whole dominion. It was because of their feelings in that respect that the Canadian National took the long course through the valley of the Matapedia adding a great many miles to the distance. Nevertheless they provided an all-Canadian route. It was for that reason that the route traced for the transcontinental railway when it was built some forty years ago goes through the county of Temiscouata and into New Brunswick without departing at any time from Canadian soil. That is a thing which I think is of satisfaction to us all.
That is exactly what we endeavoured to do last year in connection with pipe lines, and . what a few of us at least intend to do this session. I might quote something about the sheik of Araby, but I do not think you. would want me to. Those who are fighting for an all-Canadian route are doing so to benefit their own province and Canada as a whole. No threats or inferences or anything else will deviate us one inch from the path we are following in an endeavour to build up our own province first, along with the entire economy of Canada.
We would like our friends, not only from our own province but from the other provinces, to support this amendment. I should like to hear any member of any party from any province get up on a platform in British Columbia and repudiate this amendment. From the political point of view there is no candidate representing any party who could appear in British Columbia and say that he opposed this amendment. We are not doing
[Mr. CruickshankJ

this for that reason; we are doing this because we know it is going to build up British Columbia.
Last year it was suggested by the president of a company which wanted to build a United States route-his name was either Nixon or Dickson, a promoter from the United States- that industry does not follow a pipe line. Yet ten days later the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated that the United States munitions board or those entrusted with trying to speed up the production of munitions in that great country had asked him to expedite the export of gas into Idaho and Washington. Does that not prove that industry does go with a pipe line? Does not that prove that we should use this gas to promote industry within our own country in these trying times, to build up stockpiles of munitions and other things needed for defence?
I do not think there should be a dissenting voice in this house, irrespective of where the member comes from, when this amendment is put before it. There is one thing to the credit of this company and that is that they have admitted openly that they are going through Kingsgate, down to Spokane, thence to Seattle and then to Vancouver. No doubt I shall have an opportunity to speak again on pipe lines before this session is over. I do not want to take one minute after nine o'clock to press this matter unduly.
I want to salute the premier of Alberta as a Canadian for having stated that no gas or oil will be permitted to be exported until the needs of Canada are met. He deserves every credit for making that statement. I would like to have some of the money coming from the oil wells. I do not understand the money they suggest in Alberta, but I certainly would like to know something about the money that comes from these oil wells.
There is not a solitary soul in British Columbia who wants this United States route. Everyone realizes that hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. Every time four or five men can get $80 or $100 together to buy a few pieces of stationery they apply for a charter. The Rockefeller fortune was not made from oil that came from the ground; it was made from the transportation, distribution and sale of oil.
It is inconceivable to me that anyone would want to build up the great country to the south before our own needs are met. It was said last year that some of us do not want gas or oil exported to the United States. That is an argument you would expect to be advanced from the corner from which it was advanced. In a gathering of

262 there is bound to be at least one who cannot understand anything at all. We want to export our surplus to the great country to the south, but we do not want to send our gas to the United States and then back into the great port of Vancouver.
This matter could be easily solved by this company doing what the Trans-Canada company did. I do not see how they could do otherwise. I am sure that the hon. member for Vancduver South (Mr. Laing) will speak after me on this particular bill and with his usual eloquence. When he spoke so eloquently the other night in connection with another pipe line bill he said he was interested in the welfare of his own province. I am proud that he comes from the great city of Vancouver. He has told us that the company whose bill he is sponsoring is going to bring its gas and oil into that great city. This will be greatly appreciated at a time when it is needed for national defence purposes.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house resumes the business under consideration at six o'clock.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe for the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Ross (Souris), and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Wright.
Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, after the eloquent speech we have just listened to I am afraid that my dissertation on wheat will not be particularly interesting to this house. It was stated on a previous occasion, and I think it should be repeated, that of the 262 members there are only 42 who indicated themselves as farmers on their ballot papers. There are roughly only 52 members who are either wheat farmers or who represent wheat farmers. Despite that fact hon. members in every corner have been listening to what has been said on behalf of the western farmers and I trust they will forgive me for taking a little more time in this debate.
I happened to be on the train that came down to Ottawa in February of 1942. I think I was the only member of this house who was on that train which carried a delegation down here to ask the government under the late 80709-781
Canadian Wheat Board Act Right Hon. Mackenzie King to give us $1 per bushel for our wheat. In fact, there were two trainloads of delegates. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Whiteside) is now a sitting member but at that time there was no other member of any house, provincial or otherwise, who was on those trains. We received splendid treatment in Ottawa. We put forward a case at that time asking for one dollar wheat, and we finally got 90-cent wheat. I think it is just as well that we refresh our memories about what happened on that occasion. There was not a C.C.F. member of parliament on either of those trains, not one of them, and they had C.C.F. members of parliament at the time.
I want to say further, and I am going to bring you up to date now, that after listening to the different speakers in this debate I shall quote my friend-and he is a friend of mine with a splendid war record-the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross). I shall bring you right up to date, right up to March 13, 1951, when he said that the fact is that the western farmers accepted the wheat board as the agency to sell their wheat. That is correct. At page 1168 of Hansard for March 12, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated:
I intend to show that the arrangements in effect during the five years under discussion were in the interests of the western wheat farmer, and that without these arrangements the situation today would be very much less satisfactory than it is. I intend to show that the Canadian and British governments entered into an agreement that was beneficial to both the Canadian producer and the British consumer, and that the terms of that agreement were fully observed on both sides.
In addition I quitp agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he says that the advantage of hindsight upon which members of the opposition rely so heavily in this debate is far better than any foresight. After all the government did carry Canada through one war, and even though we may disagree with certain ministers of the government at times, they have handled matters since the war in a very capable manner.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Purely a matter of opinion.


Alan Carl Stewart: You have a right
to express your opinion in the same way that I have the right to express mine, and we always have that right in this House of Commons. In addition the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who I think has the respect of every member of this house regardless of party, said in answer to a question at page 1023 of Hansard for March 8:
The government has taken the position that while there was no further obligation on the United Kingdom in a legal sense, the United Kingdom

Canadian Wheat Board Act authorities should realize that the wheat growers of Canada and most of the community of the prairie provinces believed that there was a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause which had not been discharged.
I am not one who flatters anybody but I happen to have a considerable law practice and I think I know something about the law. As I said, I think the Prime Minister has the respect of this house. He has the respect of the lawyers, and he is serving in a capacity where he is earning only one-third of what he could earn outside of this house. I am also satisfied as a westerner born in Saskatchewan of Ontario stock on both sides for five generations that if the wheat crop had been sold under the auspices of the Winnipeg grain exchange-and I am looking at the hon. member for Souris now- it would have been sold over the five-year period at lower prices.
That is my conviction because of trips I made to the city of Winnipeg when I was a boy in knee pants. I visited some of the fine streets, Wellington crescent, and so on-and members from the city of Winnipeg know that city as well as I do and better-and every other place on some of those streets was a hundred thousand dollar home that had been built by some member of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Who paid for it? The farmers of western Canada.
Westerners who have travelled east for many years feel that the cities of Winnipeg, Fort William, Port Arthur, and clean through to Montreal have benefited from the production of western wheat. Sometimes I think that this legislature should conduct a travel trip of easterners from all parts of eastern Canada through the three prairie provinces. I think they would be inclined to agree with me. The Minister of Trade and Commerce would not be in this house and his worthy confrere from the adjoining city would not be here because there would be no Fort William and Port Arthur if it had not been for western Canada. It would not have been possible to elect members from either of those cities.
In so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, if I may be pardoned for saying so, I served with the first division overseas, went through Ypres, the first gas attack, and so on. I am not saying this personally but to show that I certainly cannot be attacked in this house by anyone as being an enemy of Great Britain. The records are all available. I was the first Canadian soldier in the castle of Edinburgh. In the Guildhall they sat me in the Lord Mayor's chair because I was the first Canadian soldier there. You can find that on record. My only brother was killed overseas. I do not think anybody can say that my remarks from now on will be against

Great Britain or anti-British. However, as a westerner I am not satisfied that Great Britain under its socialistic government has played ball, nor am I satisfied with the attitude of the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) who, if I may be pardoned for saying so, never visited Great Britain during any war and in addition never answered certain questions I was desirous of asking him with respect to the agreement under discussion in this house.
When the final analysis is made the public of Canada will have intense respect for the Prime Minister of this country. They will also have respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce who demonstrated in one war what can be done in the organization of Canadian industry. In so far as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is concerned, he and I were political opponents at times, and we even got down to a lot of personal terms when we debated. Most of the personal terms came from the Minister of Agriculture, not myself. I think even the hon. member for Souris will agree, however, that if you remove the Minister of Agriculture from public life out west and try to elect somebody else to represent western agriculture you are going to have one fine job replacing him. While I have not at times agreed with him politically, I think everybody in the house knows that he knows his department and that he is quite capable of answering questions connected therewith.
I would label him a professional politician, and we are simply amateurs at the game. I think I speak for western opinion in my constituency. I have carried my constituency both as an independent on several occasions and as a Liberal on the final occasion when I removed the C.C.F. fellow who was there before. I was also interested in the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I do not think the hon. member has ever been out west, so I am giving him an invitation now to come out and let me show him around.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. This is the first time I have been invited.


Alan Carl Stewart: We will give you a good time. I tried to make a note of what the hon. member said; he will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood his remarks to be to this effect: "Be reasonable. You have had enough at the expense of the people of Canada,"-referring to the western provinces. "When will the western farmer be satisfied? If I were the member for a western constituency I would say we were satisfied." The hon. member also mentioned that Ontario and Quebec pay 80 per cent of the taxes paid in Canada. In connection with the returns

on western grain he went on to say that the farmers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta were crying for additional money just as babies cry for castor oil.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I said Castoria.


Alan Carl Stewart: Well, I asked the hon. member to correct me if I was wrong; they have the same result, anyway. He went on to say that the farmers of the west are never satisfied and never contented. Well,
I do not know; I am merely expressing my view as a former independent and now a Liberal in this house. Perhaps our western farmers are not completely satisfied, but we are rather aggressive people out there. When I went through the maritimes with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black) I saw more ox teams than I ever saw out west, and my father was with General McNaughton's father as a settler in 1882. When I drove around the Gaspe peninsula twenty years ago-


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: You must have been a Conservative in those days.


Alan Carl Stewart: No, I was an independent.. I have never been a Conservative, though I see the press labelled me as one the other day. But there are worse things than Conservatives. You have them sitting away to your left and I do not know why you handle them so gently. As a matter of fact I would like to see a much stronger opposition in this house; then you would give us something to fight about. Now I should like to file a table showing farm prices for wheat in the United States and Canada, as obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics, together with a table showing prices of wheat from 1907 to 1950, which gives a long-term average of $1.27 a bushel. These figures will demonstrate to anyone in the house that the prices paid for wheat in the last five years were the highest during any five-year period in the history of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member consent to have the tables appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alan Carl Stewart: Who objects?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless there is unanimous consent the tables may not appear.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is the table?


Alan Carl Stewart: I explained it a moment ago. If you still object I can read the whole thing, but it will only take that much more time. It is correct; it is from the bureau of statistics.
Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Speaker: Does the house agree that the table may appear in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan Carl Stewart: The first table is as follows:
Farm Price of Wheat-U.S.A. and Canada
	U.S.A.	Canada
	United States	Canadian
	currency	currency
	cents	cents
Year	per bushel	per bushel
	(a)	(b)
1930-31 	
67	491931-32 	
39	381932-33 	
38	351933-34 	
74	491934-35 	
85	611935-36 	
83	611936-37 	
102	941937-38 	
96	1021938-39 	
56	591939-40 	
69	541940-41 	
68	571941-42 	
94	611942-43 	
110	771943-44 	
136	1131944-45 	
141	1241945-46 	
149(a)	161(b)1946-47 	
190(a)	160(b)1947-48 	
229(a)	162(b)1948-49 	
199(a)	166(b)1949-50 	
186(a)	162(b)(a)	Source "Wheat Situation" U.S.D.A.
Years 1945-50 "Wheat Situation" U.S.D.A. (July-August, 1950).
(b)	Includes estimated 8-3 cents final payment on 5-year pool.
Source-Dominion Bureau of Statistics, March 5, 1950.
The second table is as follows:
Prices of Wheat-1907-1950
Differ-
Year	High	Low	ence1907-C8 	
112	92	201908-09 	
130	111	191909-10 	
Ill	93	181910-11 	
102	90	121911-12	
107	94	131913-14 	
109	80	291914-15 	
159	112	471915-16 .	
149	94	551916-17 	
270	169	1011917-18 	
224	221	031918-19 	
229	224	051919-20 	
315	230	851920-21 	
273	176	971921-22 	
148	111	371922-23 	
120	100	201923-24 .	
143	93	501924-25 .	
197	142	551925-26 .	
159	127	321926-27 	
162	133	291927-28 	
157	119	381928-29 	
160	117	431929-30 	
150	92	581930-31 	
78	54	241931-32 	
67	53	14
Canadian Wheat Board Act			Differ-
Year	High	Low	ence1932-33	
83	42	411933-34	
86	60	261934-35	
88	78	101935-36	
102	77	251936-37	
146	104	421937-38	
149	77	521938-39	
65	55	101939-40	
89	70	191940-41	
77	70	071941-42	
89	72	171942-43	
112	89	231943-44	
137	125	121944-45	
143	125	181945-46	175	1946-47	175	1947-48	175	1948-49	175	1949-50 Long-term	average price-127.	175	
Of course it is very easy for any westerner to make himself popular at home and in this house by advocating western rights, but in my opinion we have to consider Canadian unity; and in western Canada we must make our decision on the matter of remaining within confederation. If hon. members are inclined to disagree with the statements that have been made by three responsible ministers of the crown, they had better bear in mind the alternative, which is the possible disruption of Canadian unity.


James Arthur Ross: They were not very united.


Alan Carl Stewart: The tables I have filed will disclose that the prices south of the line during the five year period were not so high compared with the Canadian prices in other years, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has made plain already. It is interesting to note that during the course of this debate the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) had this to say, at page 1174 of Hansard for March 12:
I want to say to him that when this agreement was initiated, when it was before the house, we supported it. We believed, as the minister has said tonight, that it would give the western farmer some stability in his price.
Well, I always say hindsight is better than foresight.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Stop reading your speech.


Alan Carl Stewart: If you want to make a speech get up and make it.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would not have to read it.


Alan Carl Stewart: How else would you give a quotation? At page 1176 I questioned the leader of the C.C.F. as follows:
Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Coldwell:: I do not mind.


Alan Carl Stewart: Did you as leader of the C.C.F. party at any time protest to your fellow socialist government in Great Britain that a better price should be paid under the wheat agreement? That is question number one.


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. I do not believe it is the privilege of any hon. member of the Canadian parliament to approach the government of any country on a question of this kind except through the government of his own country.
That statement is ridiculous and incorrect. The hon. member has a perfect right to write to the government of any country, as I have written to the government of Australia, where I was, and as I have written to the government of New Zealand, where I was. Of course it is up to that government whether or not it wants to give you the information. I would also say to the hon. member that it is always the privilege of the hon. member to privately ask the government of another country questions in connection with their administration. I agree that the question of courtesy as between governments comes in, so that there is no misuse of this privilege. However, I am satisfied from the answer of the hon. member that he never made any attempt to persuade his fellow socialists in the government of Great Britain to pay the western producers of wheat one cent more a bushel. If he wants to deny this statement he may rise in his place and do so.
In conclusion may I say that many of our western farmers, particularly those who went through the hungry thirties, may not be completely satisfied with the final payment. However, having regard not only to the "have regard" clause accepted by the British Labour government and later disregarded by that same government, apparently with the implied approval of their counterpart in this country, the C.C.F., labourites will still contend that wheat prices should be kept up and the price of flour kept down. In this case I think the government have exercised good judgment, and I therefore marvel at our Conservative friends, who do not even support the Conservative opposition of Great Britain as against the socialist government over there. If they are really sincere-as I am sure the hon. member for Souris and the hon. member for Cumberland are-instead of riding the government on this wheat agreement they had better get busy and get behind the next British government, and then possibly we will arrive at a proper understanding with Great Britain. We will never get it under a socialist government in that country, which will repudiate as socialists always believe in the repudiation of agreements.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: to the reference made to me by one of our socialist friends across the way-I believe he referred to me as the bluff member for Springfield-I feel I must say a few words.
I believe I shall refer to that member as the boisterous, bellicose curator and pretender of the socialist party, better known as the hardware merchant from Moose Jaw. This member referred to me in connection with a statement made in the House of Commons on June 5 last by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) knows as well as I that backbenchers on this side of the house have no say in drawing up government policy, except in government caucus. I think the remarks he made at that time were not in order at all.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many members in this house, the announcement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on June 5 was very vague.


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah! Proceed.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: In my opinion, and in the opinion of many members in this house, it was not completed. The farmers of western Canada believed that after they had given the British people wheat at prices much lower than the world price they were entitled to at least another nickel a bushel from the government of Great Britain. In the west we were always hopeful that this payment would come through. Following the visit of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to Great Britain the other day, we were told that the government of Great Britain would not make a payment under the "have regard to" clause. I believe that we in this house, and the people of western Canada, can be very thankful that this government, with only three western members in a cabinet of sixteen, has elected to make a payment of $65 million to the western farmer. It is something to be thankful for.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the amendment moved by the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) at page 1057 of Hansard. The amendment reads:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion on the government's announced decision with respect to the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool and on the government's mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I should like to refer also to the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and if my socialist friends will keep quiet for a moment I shall possibly be able to help them. At page 1088 of Hansard, the hon. member said:
X well recall that many on this side of the house proclaimed as vigorously as they could that this
13,	1951
Canadian Wheat Board Act bulk trading policy was unsound in practice and would be a colossal blunder in the marketing of our wheat.
This afternoon the member for Souris asked a question of the member for Pro-vencher. Here you have the two Conservative stalwarts saying in this house that the bulk trading policy should be discarded. In other words, we should go back to the open market and the grain exchange.


James Arthur Ross: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the member for Dufferin-Simcoe mentiohed the open market or the grain exchange.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Possibly I should read again what the member for Souris said. Perhaps he can understand his own words. His amendment reads:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion on the government's announced decision with respect to the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool and on the government's mishandling of the sale of wheat and other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
When I couple those words with the words used by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, it is just about as plain as it possibly could be.


James Arthur Ross: Read it; do not put
words in his mouth, you read it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I read this twice, and if the hon. member for Souris still does not understand it he can spend the rest of the evening reading it. The hon. member for Souris has gone to great pains to show that the farmers of western Canada lost $330 million. I believe his oolleague, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, stressed an imaginary sum of $700 million. These two hon. members should get together on these things so they would be able to agree.


James Arthur Ross: Would you read the
portion in which the hon. member said anything about $700 million?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I want to refer to the results obtained under the open marketing system for ten years, and then refer to the 600 million bushels of wheat sold to Britain under these agreements. Then we can readily understand how much we would have lost had we carried on under the open market system. Like the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart), I have the figures here from 1935-36 up to 1944-45. If it is the wish of the hon. members I could put them on Hansard; otherwise I shall read them.


Some hon. Members:: Read them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: During 1935-36 the western farmers sold 214 million bushels of wheat.

Canadian Wheat Board Act The high price at that time was $1.02 and the low was 77 cents, making a difference of 25 cents.


Hazen Robert Argue: Under a Liberal government.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Under an open market. In 1936-37 we find the farmers sold 165 million bushels of wheat at a high of $1.46 and a low of $1.04, making a difference of 42 cents. In 1937-38, 126 million bushels were sold at a high of $1.49 and a low of 77 cents, a difference of 72 cents. In 1938-39, 291 million bushels of wheat were sold at a high of 65 cents and a low of 55 cents, making a difference of 10 cents. In 1939-40, 427 million bushels of wheat were sold at a high of 89 cents and a low of 70 cents, a difference of 19 cents; in 1940-41, 458 million bushels of wheat were sold at a high of 77 cents and a low of 70 cents, making a difference of 7 cents; in 1941-42, 228 million bushels of wheat were sold at a high of 89 cents and a low of 72 cents, making a difference of 17 cents; in 1942-43, 268 million bushels of wheat were sold at a high of $1.12 and a low of 89 cents, making a difference of 23 cents. In 1943-44, 327 million bushels of wheat were sold at a high of $1.37 and a low of $1.25, making a difference of 12 cents. In 1944-45 there were 353 million bushels of wheat sold at a high of $1.43 and a low of $1.25, making a difference of 18 cents.
When the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) spoke, he said that the farmers had lost $330 million. I wonder how they could have lost $330 million when they never had it' They never had it to lose.


Mr. Rowe:: You never let them get it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If this wheat had been sold under the system of the grain exchange which the Free Press has advocated for years and the hon. member for Souris has never put on the record until he moved this resolution where he stood, it goes to prove that this $330 million which we may have got would have gone into the pockets of the speculators and not into the pockets of the farmers in western Canada.


James Arthur Ross: It might have gone back to the Liberal kitty.


An hon. Member:: What is that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: One has only to look at the market for flax in this last six months. In the month of October, flax was selling at about $3.15 a bushel and today it is around $5.32. I wiU venture to say that sixty days after the flax is harvested most of it is in the hands of the speculators and the rising price goes to the speculator every time. That is why I believe that the wheat board should handle not only wheat and barley but also oats, rye and flax.


An hon. Member:: And rye.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am glad the hon. member said "rye"; and I do not refer to rye in the bottle. Rye fluctuated last year from around $1.92 a bushel to $2.42 a bushel.


An hon. Member:: That is caused by the excise tax.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If any hon. gentleman purchased a bottle of rye he would know that it was $4.25 a bottle then and that it is still $4.25 now. It does not make any difference.


An hon. Member:: Cheap rye.


James Arthur Ross: That was pretty well watered down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, some people wonder why the Liberal party have so many friends.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They wonder why there are 182 Liberals here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
. Sinnott: I will tell you why. At any time that any part of Canada has had any difficulty, the Liberal party has always come to their rescue. I want to tell the hon. m~m-ber for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that I will be here a long time longer than he will.


Hazen Robert Argue: That depends on how you vote.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We should not be alarmed at paying $65 million to the western wheat growers. We have had a few hot speeches here by some of the members from the east. We appreciate that. Our friends back in the west will say: Well, those fellows down east opposed us all the way. We are appreciative of getting what we got. I want to point out that it is not only the western farmers who have had a handout. As I said before, when other parts of the country were in trouble, the Liberal party always came to their rescue!


An hon. Member:: Apples in Nova Scotia.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Yes; they gave half a million dollars I think to the apple growers of Nova Scotia; and they gave $2 million to the apple growers of British Columbia.


Mr. Higgins:: What for?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: And as to those people who are feeding stock down in eastern Canada, they also gave freight subsidies to the eastern farmers of $154 million.


Mr. Cardiff:: What did the western farmer get?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Liberal party has been generous wherever there has been a disaster. I never heard any man in this house object to the help that the Liberal party gave to the Fraser valley at the time of the flood.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It was not the Liberal party. It was all the people of Canada.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I never heard anyone oppose the contribution made to the Red river valley. I never heard anybody in this house complain about the amount this house contributed for the help of those affected by the Cabano and Rimouski fires. All those are contributions which were necessary. If the Liberal party saw that this $65 million was necessary to the western farmer, all well and and good.


William Earl Rowe: It looks like another lire sale.


An hon. Member:: It all comes out of the
Liberal party.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) plead the case of every Tom, Dick and Harry.


James Arthur Ross: And Johnny.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: At the same time I have never heard him say one solitary word for the farmers of western Canada since I have been here. I want to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he ever went out and milked a cow or if he ever went out and did a day's work on the farm. If he never has, and he does not know what it takes to produce a pound of butter or a pound of pork, I will tell you what I will do. I will take him out to my farm and let him put in a day's work with me. Then he will know what a day's work is.


Hazen Robert Argue: That would be your first day.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pleads for eight hours, shorter work and more pay, I want to tell him that in half of this country today the labour force is working eight hours, shorter work, more pay, and more holidays. On the other hand, they are now complaining because the butter price is rising. The people who produced butter many years ago have the very same things to go through today. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can tell me how he can tell those farmers to work eight hours or shorter hours and get more pay, and produce more butter, I should like him to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I think I should throw out a challenge to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) as well.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
He has been punching the empty packing cases of the farmers, because I do not believe he ever put up a stook in his life.
Our genial friend the- hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-I refer to him in a kindly way, because he has always given this house some very anxious moments.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Did he ever milk a cow?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The reason I refer to him in a
kindly way is that he did not say he was going to vote against the $65 million for the western wheat growers.


Jean-François Pouliot: Wait and see.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I did not catch the remark. I should like to remind him that the human mind sometimes forgets too soon. I want to. remind him that this house voted not too long ago to take over the defunct and decrepit railway which is in his riding, and we are still operating it I believe at a considerable loss.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Therefore I close with these remarks. When we come to vote these poor western farmers what is coming to them because our socialist friends over in England did not see fit to help us out, it would be a kindly gesture on the part of both the Conservatives and the C.C.F. to withdraw their amendments so that we could make it unanimous.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I do not expect to entertain the house so hilariously as the previous speaker, but I do feel that I should just say a word before this vote is taken on account of the fact that I represent the wheat growing farmers in a large part of my constituency, and by virtue of the fact that I, as well as many others, have received numerous letters and telegrams from individuals and farm organizations asking that we press for a final payment of at least 25 cents a bushel.
I listened with a good deal of interest to the previous speaker, as we all did. He is quite entertaining at times, but sometimes I do feel that his arguments are a little weak. I could not help thinking that when he was asking some of those who represent city constituencies whether they had ever been on a farm or whether they had ever milked a cow. I wondered whether a requisite for debating this subject should be that you
80709 -79

Canadian Wheat Board Act had to have the qualifications of pulling- what do you call it? Well, yip yanks, whatever you want to say.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I looked at the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who was partially responsible for all this, and I had to ask myself a question. I wonder how many yip yanks he has pulled in his lifetime, because he is not registered as a farmer either. And even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), while probably he has had some little experience farming, I do not know, is described in the Parliamentary Guide as a teacher and for the most part of his life has been either in the legislature or in the House of Commons. And as I look over the entire cabinet-I have not scrutinized them one by one-I doubt whether there are any farmers in the cabinet at all. But that does not disqualify them for the positions which they hold, even though some of them have to deal with matters of trade and commerce, agriculture and so forth.
I do have a little sympathy with the government. I am not so hard-hearted that I cannot begin to look at two sides of the question. It is not easy in these very complicated times to negotiate trade agreements that are going to be one hundred per cent satisfactory all round. We are living in difficult days. We are living in days when we do not know what the value of the dollar and the value of the pound are to be next year or even a few months from now. We notice in today's paper that there is quite a run on the New York stock exchange. It may be just a temporary affair, but who knows what might happen in the next little while? We are living in complicated times.
When the government goes out to negotiate a trade agreement, especially if they desire to look into the future four or five years ahead, and negotiate an agreement on the basis of what might happen in four or five years, they have a difficult task. I do believe that the government might have relied a little bit more on the wheat board to do this trading for them. What has actually happened of course is that the government tied up five years of wheat marketing by a trade agreement signed by them; consequently leaving the wheat board as simply a machine, a rubber stamp, for five years.
The next thing I should like to say is that if the government's case in respect of what might happen two, three, four or five years from the time they signed on the dotted line did not turn out as they expected it would, then they cannot escape the responsibility. That is all there is to it. And if the

western farmer was given to understand that he would get a better deal than he got, then the baby is immediately placed upon the doorstep of this government where it belongs.
I should like to quote one or two views that have been, expressed by some prominent men in Canada. The premiers of some of the provinces cannot be wiped aside when it comes to the expression of their opinions with respect to this final wheat payment. The premiers of the provinces are nobody's fools. They are men who have to deal with big business and some of the provinces are dealing with business almost as large as some of the things with which the Ottawa government has to deal with. Let me quote what Premier Manning said respecting the announcement of the final wheat payment of 8 [DOT] 3 cents, as follows:
The figure announced for final settlement (8-3 cents a bushel additional for the five year period) was a surprise and keen disappointment, and by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as a fair and equitable settlement.
No matter what the extenuating circumstances, the fact remains that the farmers of western Canada suffered a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to supply wheat to Britain under the Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement at a figure below prevailing world prices.
The farmers were led to believe that what is known as the "have regard to" clause in the agreement would protect their interests and assure an equitable adjustment to offset any loss sustained.
If the government of the United Kingdom disclaims any obligation to offset this loss, there is an inescapable moral obligation on the government of Canada that negotiated the agreement, to see that our primary producers are not now left to absorb the loss involved.
The meagre adjustment payment now proposed goes but a very short distance toward correcting the wrong.
Next I should like to quote the statement of the premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Douglas. Although Mr. Douglas is not a farmer, as the horn, member for Springfield [DOT] (Mr. Sinnott) may have desired him to be, I will say that I sat in this house at the same time Mr. Douglas was a member and I could not help but notice that he paid particular attention and gave a great deal of study to the matter of the Canadian wheat board, its operations and the subject of wheat generally. I believe he became more or less an expert for we heard him debate the subject many times when he was here. Mr. Douglas said this:
The farmers will be bitterly disappointed at the amount of the settlement. Two things seem to have been overlooked by the federal government. First, the farmers had $49 million coming to them on the basis of wheat used for domestic consumption which was given the millers at a low price to maintain the price ceiling. This would work out to about 3J cents a bushel. Second, Mr. Gardiner and the federal government agreed in 1946 that if, as a result of the removal of price controls, the cost of production made the price guaranteed

under the agreement inadequate, then some compensatory adjustment would be made in the same manner as was provided under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
Had these two principles been kept in mind the farmers, in my opinion, would be entitled to anywhere from 15 to 25 cents a bushel on the five-year pool.
That is Mr. Douglas' comment. I should like to read another comment by another man whom some in this house may regard as worthy of speaking on this subject. I refer to Mr. Tucker, the leader of the opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature, who sat in this house as a member. When people make statements in legislatures or in parliament there is sometimes a slight political tinge to them. Human nature being what it is, we have to grant that. Regardless of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last night absolved the British government from any responsibility in the matter, a news report quotes Mr. Tucker as follows:
Opposition Leader Walter Tucker said he was glad to hear Ottawa had decided to pay $65 million to the wheat board to bring the final payment to 8'3 cents, but he was disappointed the payment was not going to be considerably higher.
"Unfortunately," said Mr. Tucker, "the British government has finally refused to recognize any further obligation under the 'have regard to' clause. Had the British government paid the same price for wheat supplied under the British contract as other countries paid for Canadian wheat it would have had to pay over $400 million more than it did."
Considering the sacrifices of the British people in the war, Mr. Tucker said he hesitated to speak as strongly about the situation as perhaps he should. But he was satisfied that if the British people knew the exact facts of the case they would repudiate the action of their government in refusing to live up to the spirit of the contract under which they had benefited so greatly.
Mr. Tucker and the Minister of Trade and Commerce had better get together to iron out their differences. There is another thing I want to say in order to keep the record straight. I have not a great deal of use for socialism or for the policies of the British government. But I do not think we can blame the British government for everything. There is one thing that many people do not recognize, that the socialist government of Great Britain inherited a very bad situation. I am not saying whether they made that situation any better or not, but I do say that no matter who had taken over the reins of government in Great Britain at the time Mr. Attlee did they would have had a mighty tough job.
There were forces in the world that were out to wreck Great Britain no matter how they did it. They have done a fair job of wrecking Great Britain economically. That was the situation inherited by the socialist government. Therefore I do not blame them for everything. Financial circumstances have 80709-792
Canadian Wheat Board Act compelled them to do many things, whether they wanted to or not. I say further that the British people and the British government historically have been known throughout the ages to meet their obligations. I say that their word is still as good as their bond, and when Mr. Tucker talks this way he is doing a grave injustice to a great race of people. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), reminds me that Mr. Tucker is doing an injustice to Canada. No doubt he thought he was doing it to protect the Liberal government here. He did not protect it which is evidenced by one of the best things that could have happened and that was the frank statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) last night which absolved the British government from blame.
With reference to the 8-3 cents a bushel we know that the government is digging up $65 million. I might ask the question: How did they arrive at $65 million? I know their answer. However, I would ask further: Why did they not make it $105 million? Why did they not make it $205 million? The answer might be: Well, you know when we do that we have got to tax the people. Let us not fool ourselves with respect to this matter. Eventually of course if our great national debt has to be paid then of course it has got to be paid out of taxation under the present financial policy of the government. Of course if they want to utilize the Bank of Canada and change their policies that is a different matter.
As a matter of fact they could have made the. figure $205 million or $265 million. They could have given the farmers a better price than 8-3 cents per bushel. With respect to all the hollering about the east having to pay the western farmer, the east is not paying the western farmer anything. It is a misconception. When the government begins to make payments for these things it just goes into the debt structure of the country. The whole country may be called upon eventually to sacrifice in order to remove that debt.


An hon. Member:: Of course.


Ernest George Hansell: Do not say "of course". Of course they will if this government stays here. But do not make any mistake about it. There is no guarantee that this government is going to run the country for the next two or three centuries. As a matter of fact sometimes changes can come very fast. All you want in Canada is something to capture the imagination of the people, and believe me this government will go out just as quickly as a good many governments have gone out in the past.


An hon. Member:: You will not be here.


Ernest George Hansell: If the financial policy were changed it might alter the entire picture.

Canadian Wheat Board Act and that is what is needed in Canada today. However, even under the policy of the present Liberal government, if they had paid $265 million it would have simply gone into the debt structure, and no one would have known the difference. Let me ask my hon. friends from eastern Canada not to think for a moment that if the government paid $265 million they would have to rush around everywhere with a hat and say: Come on, you eastern people, fork out; build up the pile. That is not the way it is done.
It simply goes into the debt structure of the nation, which some time or other might have to be paid off. When it will ever be paid the Lord only knows.


An hon. Member:: And he ain't talking.


Ernest George Hansell: He has already spoken. I am afraid if he did do a little talking out loud something would surely happen. I do say, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had desired to do so, if they had desired to play fair with the western farmers, even though they did not pay the 25 cents that farm organizations all over the country were demanding they could have paid 12 cents, 15 cents or a little more. It would have been a much more satisfactory situation than offering them a pittance of 8-3 cents per bushel when they expected double that or more. I say that is what they should have done.
Of course they missed their guess when they signed the agreement. They expected that the price of wheat would go down because that is what usually happens after a war. Instead there was an accelerating of prices throughout the world, an inflationary period throughout the world. Let not the government say that they are not partially responsible, because there has been inflation in Canada as well as in other nations. They have been part and parcel of the inflationary rise in prices throughout the world because they adhere to the same financial policies that some other nations follow.
Because the price of everything began to boom they of course missed their guess. Instead of prices going down they went up, and of course that meant that the diagnosis of the future, or shall I say the prognosis, was wrong. Therefore I say if it was wrong then it is their responsibility to make it right with the farmers. I am going to vote for these amendments. When the government have made a statement that they will pay 8 -3 cents I suppose they consider it would be a catastrophe for them to change their minds, but if they would I can tell them that it would be very pleasing to the agricultural industry of Canada.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to
the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) this evening I must confess that I have more reasons than I previously knew of for regretting that I have been unable to attend the sessions for the past few days, because one could only ask: How long has this been going on? It was difficult enough to understand some of the explanations that were given on reading them in the press and hearing condensations over the radio, but they were certainly easy to understand compared with the explanation we received from the hon. member for Springfield as to the reasons which should guide members in dealing with this problem tonight.
The discussion which I have been reading in Hansard, because of my inability to be in the house for the past few days, has related to other matters than those directly in issue on the second reading of the bill before the house which amends the wheat board act. There might be some difference of opinion as to whether a great deal of that discussion has actually been within the ambit of the motion before the house. Nevertheless once the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) took advantage of this debate to make his explanation of the reason for the payment that had been decided upon, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) later decided it was appropriate that he should give another explanation, then obviously this debate took a form which is now established; and we cannot disregard the fact that the main subject under discussion, no matter what may be the contents of the bill now before us, is the contract between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom and the statements that have been made in regard to that contract, its fulfilment or otherwise by the government of the United Kingdom and the arrangements that have been made by this government to meet whatever losses have resulted to the farmers of western Canada.
If there is one thing that has emerged very clearly from the discussions in the house today-and they are the first discussions I have actually heard in this debate-it is that there is the utmost confusion as to what is really in issue. The discussion has related to the contract, whether it has been carried out by the government of Great Britain, and whether the arrangements being made are adequate having regard to the terms of the contract. It seems to me essential that we keep clearly in mind that the payment announced in this house last week by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is not a payment under the contract at all. The
[Mr. Hansell.)

announcement made it perfectly clear that the payment of $65 million is to wind up the five year wheat pool. How that figure was arrived at he did not explain. Reference was made to the fact that a balance of $65 million remained of the loan to Great Britain, which the government of Great Britain had not taken up. However, there was no attempt to explain the process by which that figure was arrived at. Surely before the members of this house should be asked to express an opinion as to whether that or any other sum is an appropriate figure the government should place before this house the basis upon which they made their computations and the calculations which resulted in the figure they have adopted. It is meaningless to suggest that it is adequate or inadequate so far as the government is concerned unless we know how they worked it out, unless we know how they arrived at this arithmetical calculation.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture are as far apart as two ministers of the same government ever could have been in explaining the same transaction. The Minister of Agriculture has given one explanation regarding what has happened; the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given another. In the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture the implication was clear that the government of Great Britain had failed to live up to its agreement. In fact the implication went further than that and even suggested that consideration had been given to carrying this question to the international court of justice. There would have been no reason for a reference to the possibility of taking this before the international court of justice unless that had been considered by this government. That is an extremely serious imputation.	It is an
extremely serious charge. It leaves an impression in the minds of the members of this house and in the minds ef the people of Canada that our oldest partner, the nation upon which we have looked as the model of integrity under our form of parliamentary government, cannot in fact be relied upon to carry out its word. For that reason I think the members of this house and the people of Canada generally will welcome the statement last night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that in his opinion the British government had in no way defaulted under the terms of this contract. But the members of this house and the people of Canada are left in the unsatisfactory position that they do not know which minister is making the statement on behalf of the government that we are supposed to accept.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I hope it will not be suggested that any uncertainty has been removed, because in this house this evening we have heard the suggestion repeated that there has been default. The hon. member who repeated that did so with appropriate safeguards to his own reputation for belief in the integrity of the government of the United Kingdom; but he made it perfectly clear that in his opinion there had been some substantial measure of default. Reference was made by the last speaker to a statement made only a few days ago in Saskatchewan by the leader of one of the parties in that province, which indicated quite clearly that he had gained the same impression and that in his opinion there was default under the terms of this contract.
If there was no default, if there was no obligation, moral or otherwise, on the part of the government of Great Britain to make any further payment than has been made, then naturally it is necessary for hon. members to know the principle under which that payment is being made, and also the principle under which substantially larger amounts are being claimed. At this point let me say I am convinced that every hon. member of this house is anxious to do what can be done to see that the farmers of western Canada and in fact all agricultural producers in Canada are dealt with fairly whenever the government assumes a direct measure of responsibility for the amount of money they shall receive. The obligation of this government would not end even if no further payment were due under this contract. Unquestionably there is a moral obligation on the part of the government. It must be remembered that the wheat taken over for the purpose of fulfilling this contract was taken over under compulsion. I find it difficult to believe that, at a time when this government is assuming such sweeping powers to take over any material that may be required under the present emergency, in fact to demand any services which may be regarded as necessary to meet the requirements of this emergency, members would not wish to be sure that those services and those materials are going to be paid for fairly and justly by this government. For that reason we should recognize the moral obligation that must always exist where the government compels the delivery of any commodity or any service to pay what properly should be paid for that commodity, that material or that service.
Therefore, no matter what the terms of the contract with Britain may have been, a contract between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain and not a contract between this government and the
1226	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act farmers of Canada, it is the duty of the government of Canada to recognize its moral obligation to compensate the farmers fairly for what has been delivered to the government., The farmers did not negotiate this contract. That fact seems to be overlooked in a great deal of the discussion. The farmers had nothing whatever to do with the terms of this contract. Whether or not they approved or otherwise at a later date, individually or through any of their organizations, is apart from the point. The contract was negotiated between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain. The Canadian government took the responsibility of compelling delivery of the wheat which would be necessary to carry out the terms of that contract.
What is the figure that would properly compensate the farmers of western Canada? What is the moral obligation? Mr. Speaker, I submit that nothing has been placed before the hon. members of this house to show what that figure is. Is it fifty cents a bushel? Is it twenty-five cents a bushel? Is it ten cents a bushel? Is it five cents a bushel? Certainly there has been nothing put before this house to show how the figure of 8-3 cents per bushel was arrived at. This is not something to be dealt with in a casual manner. At a time when the people of this country are being asked to pay large sums in taxes, the government, which has already taken such sweeping powers over personal services- as well as materials and products of this country, should give us a great deal more information about this than we have today.
Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), in a speech which was carefully prepared to place before this house and the people of Canada his position in regard to that contract for which he has quite willingly assumed at all times the major responsibility so far as can be discerned in this house, presented argument after argument to show why in his opinion this was a good contract. At no point in the speech he made, which I have read quite carefully today, did he even suggest any reason for a payment beyond the payment provided for by the contract itself. Does the Minister of Trade and Commerce believe that the western farmers have received all that they should receive? So far as his speech last night is concerned, we have no evidence that he believes that anything further should be paid. But his speech went -a great deal further than that. Over and over again last night he not only explained why he thought this contract, under all the circumstances, was a contract that was eminently fair to the farmers of western Canada, but he also


emphasized the fact that the British government had fully lived up to the terms of that contract; that they were in default in no way.
If that is so, then there seems to be only one member of the government from whom we can receive the information which we should have, and that is the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). We have the extraordinary situation of the two senior members of this government, other than the Prime Minister, giving to this house and the people of Canada an entirely different interpretation of the reason for the course that is being followed by the government at this time. In fact I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his closing words left an impression which could well have been left in the first place on behalf of the government, if in fact that is the position that the government takes. These were his words, and I quote from page 1173 of Hansard for March 12:
... I am very happy the agreement was made. 1 am happy the way it has worked out, and I deplore the suggestion that the British government has not played fair with the Canadian people.
If that is his position, and he has made it clear on a number of occasions that it is the position he wishes this house to accept, then surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce would not be the one to explain to us just how this figure was arrived at, and just what the governing factors were which led to the arithmetical calculation. The Minister of Agriculture, of course, did refer to the figure of $65 million, as did the Prime Minister. The Minister of Agriculture recently went over to Britain, and certain discussions were reopened. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out that, while there was no obligation under the contract involved, the Canadian government considered it advisable to inform the United Kingdom government of the views of certain producer groups who felt that sufficient account had not been taken in the final settlement of the so-called "have regard to" clause. He went on to explain that the Prime Minister in London and here had discussed this subject within the past few months with representatives of the British government and that then the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had recently gone to London to extend those discussions. It has been stated in this house and it has been stated outside the house that the Minister of Agriculture went over with a definite proposal. It has been stated that he presented to the government of Great Britain a proposition that they should take up the remaining $65 million of the loan made by the government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada and made available to the government of Great Britain, and that

this $65 million should then be paid by the government of Great Britain as their apparent computation of the final payment under this contract. Either that is correct or it is not. The statement has been made and it has not been challenged. I believe that this house should be informed by the Prime Minister whether that is correct. I think that the members of this house have a right to know-


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) wishes the information, he might perhaps look at the official answer which was given to a question put by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). It may be found in Hansard at page 1023. There is a statement there that was filed in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Assiniboia; and that statement is entirely correct.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker; that does not answer the question at all.


William Earl Rowe: It does not prove it is correct, either.


George Alexander Drew: No, that does not answer the question.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon... member to withdraw the insinuation that a statement made by the Prime Minister, in answer to a question in the house, does not prove its own correctness. That is an improper imputation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The leader of the opposition said it does not answer the question.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: I am not asking for the withdrawal of the assertion that it does not answer the question; but I ask the hon. member to withdraw the imputation that I have made an incorrect answer to the question.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, have we reached the point where the Prime Minister makes a statement and no one can make any contrary statement? There is no imputation here of good faith or otherwise. I said, and I repeat, that the answer to which the Prime Minister has referred me does not answer this question at all. I will read the whole question into the record,* since it has been brought in at this point. The question that was asked, as reported at page 1023 of Hansard, is as follows:


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture make a visit to the United Kingdom in February, 1951?
2.	If so, what was the purpose or purposes of this visit and what was the result of same?
3.	Did the Minister of Agriculture take with him on this visit any official government documents or proposals relating to the purposes of his visit?
13, 1951	1227
Canadian Wheat Board Act
4.	If so, what was the nature of such documents or proposals?
5.	Has the government at any time since June 5, 1950, made any statement contrary to the position taken on that date by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to the final settlement of the "have regard to" clause?
6.	If so, in what manner, when, and by whom was any such statement made?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The purpose and the result have already been announced.
3.	No.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: That answer "no" was to the question: Did he take any official proposal from the government? And the negative answer is correct.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker. The question was this:
Did the Minister of Agriculture take with him on this visit any official government documents or proposals relating to the purposes of his visit?


Mr. St. Laurent:: And the answer was no.


George Alexander Drew: I am not talking about what he took with him in the form of official documents or official proposals in written form or otherwise. What I am asking is whether the Prime Minister will say that the statement made in this house yesterday that the Minister of Agriculture had gone there with a proposal that the British government take up the balance of this loan amounting to $65 million for the purpose of making a final payment under the "have regard to" clause to that amount is or is not correct. That is the whole point. If the Prime Minister wishes to answer that, I shall be happy to hear him do so.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is a different question. Mr. Rowe: Nobody is charging bad faith there.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Minister of Agriculture has already denied that. As reported at page 1066 of Hansard, he said:
When it was suggested that there was a shortage of dollars, it was pointed out that there was $65 million left in the loan which might be utilized and save dollars for the present. It was suggested both in this house and outside that the government had announced agreement with the British in their contention that they had met their obligations. That was not the case, and in the hope that a removal of that opinion might change the decision the re-opening of the discussions was pressed.
There was no proposal by the government that they draw this amount and pay it over. There was the statement that they could do so if they saw fit to do it. But there was no request at all made by the government to the British government to make any further payment. It was always recognized that there was no further legal obligation upon them. But I felt that it was only fair that

Canadian Wheat Board Act I should point out to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when he was here that there was a prevailing feeling that they had not carried out the "have regard to" clause in the manner in which it had been expected they would carry it out; and those expectations were a result of statements that had been made in this country by one of his colleagues after listening in this house to discussions taking place here and having gone out to Winnipeg to make the position clear. I felt that they should know that those expectations existed; that they should know how they had come about, and should know that there would be serious disappointment if they did nothing further about the "have regard to" clause. I told the prime minister of the United Kingdom that we had accepted as their position in May or June their statement that they had done all they intended to do under the "have regard to" clause, and I said: "I am not asking you to do more, but I am asking you if you do not think, in view of what I am saying to you now, that I should bring those facts to the attention of the chancellor." He agreed that I might bring them to the attention of the chancellor. When I went over in January, I did so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has now stated that it was pointed out to the British government that there was remaining $65 million which they could-


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that was
pointed out to them. I do not think I pointed it out; but I understand that it was pointed out to them; it was something that was well known and it had been discussed here; and although many felt that it would be an insufficient amount to meet these expectations it was an amount that was available and that they could draw upon at any time up till the end of 1951 and use in any way they pleased.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is not much
wonder the statement was made that was made here in the house last night; because, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it was perfectly well known that there was a balance of $65 million, and for that reason more must have been intended when the British government was reminded that $65 million was there, other than just the reminder that they should not "overlook the fact that they still had $65 million that they could claim.
This, after all, is something that seems to follow a reasonably well defined pattern of diplomacy. It was pointed out that there was a balance of $65 million, and they did not choose to use that for this purpose, and 
to engage in a subterfuge of that kind. That is the situation with which we are confronted, and the Minister of Agriculture has certainly succeeded in leaving in the minds of many hon. members, as evidenced by speeches made here tonight, as well as this afternoon, to say nothing of the impression that has been left throughout the country, that the British government did not live up to its obligations in this oase.


Mr. Ferrie:: They did not.


George Alexander Drew: Well, Mr. Speaker-


James Arthur Ross: The hon. member for
Mackenzie has just said that they did not.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister who was not here will now understand part of our difficulty when he hears one of his supporters say, "They did not", because that is the position that has been emphasized by some of the hon. members, in keeping with the position that was put before the house by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Knowles:: Which was contrary to
the position taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


George Alexander Drew: That being so, we in this house certainly are entitled to a great deal more information than we now have in regard to a subject that has come up in this way.
As I said before the Prime Minister came in, there might have been some question as to how appropriate it is that this subject be discussed as fully as it is being discussed or the second reading of this particular bill. But any question about that was ended when the Minister of Agriculture himself chose the second reading of this bill as the time to make his statement in regard to this subject. From that point on the discussion of the contract and the payment that was to be made became a proper discussion in relation to the statement on behalf of the government by the Minister of Agriculture, and it is for that reason I am directing my remarks to this subject tonight. We have a right to know what it is that the government is really placing before us, if the contract has been fully lived up to in every way, as stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But if, in fact, this is a contract so satisfactory as he seeks to impress upon us, then obviously the payment that is to be made is a payment based upon some other basis than any claim arising out of the contract itself.
That being so then it seems that, with the divergence of opinion between his two senior

ministers, the Prime Minister should tell us exactly what the principle is under which the payment is being made, and we all should know whether the basis of their computation is one that may be understood by parliament, and whether it would appear to be adequate or not, depending upon the principle that is actually put forward.
The Prime Minister is inclined to take some exception to expressions of opinion that are raised on .this issue, but the situation before us is something that goes far beyond the question of the amount to be paid to the farmers of western Canada, so far as the members of this house are concerned. Just as much in issue before this house is the honour of this government. If there is one principle which is the very foundation of our parliamentary system-well, Mr. Speaker, we heard the suggestion earlier by one hon. member that he could not understand why hon. members had to listen to some of these remarks. It is interesting to me to hear from the government side that they will not stand for statements of that kind. Mr. Speaker, this parliament is a parliament which follows certain clearly defined rules, and the greater the majority which supports the government in this house the more scrupulously these rules should be observed if we are to retain the reality as well as the form of responsible government in this country.


Mr. Viau:: Why don't you name the hon. member on this side of the house who has made such foolish statements as you do?


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member who has just spoken will probably make a speech afterwards, which will display his intelligence, as I feel sure he would wish it to be displayed.


Fernand Viau: I have been waiting all evening.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, one of the basic and fundamental principles upon which our parliamentary system depends is that the members of the house can rely upon statements on behalf of the government in dealing with questions before this house. That is so deeply embedded in the traditions of our system that a member of the government speaks on behalf of the government collectively, or he must be disavowed by the government itself.
The Minister of Agriculture has made one statement in this house, and through this house to the people of Canada, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made another, and those two statements are entirely different in their basic proposition. Those two statements are statements which
13,	1951	1229
Canadian Wheat Board Act can only be reconciled by the Prime Minister himself explaining to us exactly what the situation is, and exactly how the government has arrived at the figures which it has put before this house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend will tell us in what way they differ.


George Alexander Drew: .Mr. Speaker, the best way to answer that is to compare the statements in Hansard of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in no single point are these statements more at variance than in the closing words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, which I have already read:
I deplore the suggestion that the British government has not played fair with the Canadian people.
-because the impression that was left by the Minister of Agriculture was the very contrary to that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the leader of the opposition will read that statement as well. He is making assertions that are not based on fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They certainly are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And he is simply making them as assertions. He declines to give chapter and verse. Suppose he do that.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture in speaking in this house on March 8, 1951, at page 1065 of Hansard made it perfectly clear that the impression-


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Some hon. Members:: What did he say?


George Alexander Drew: -made it perfectly clear that he wished the impression left that the government of Great Britain had not carried out its undertaking.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The farmers said that they did not.


An hon. Member:: The farmers said they did not.


George Alexander Drew: I have difficulty, not only in answering those who question my statements but with Liberal members who insist that I am right in the interpretation I am placing upon what has been said. I think that at the appropriate moment it would be well for the members of the Liberal party who have such divergent views to engage in an active debate on this subject. Perhaps we might leave it at the point where the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) left it and carry it only to the door of the caucus.
1230	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Maybank:: Why not name that point you were going to name?


George Alexander Drew: That has been made perfectly clear and what has been carried right across the press of this country-


Ralph Maybank: Get it out.


William Earl Rowe: Make your own speech.


George Alexander Drew: There was no question about what was intended when reference was made to the international court of justice. The fact that they would not carry the reference that far-


An hon. Member:: Read it.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. members of this house are not in any doubt as to the views that were expressed, and they are not in any doubt whatever as to the impression that was left both in this house and across the whole of this country by the press and the radio reporting the speeches that were made here.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister might well explain to this house tonight the basis upon which the computation has already been made. Then the members of this house will better know whether, with the facts put before them by the government, the figure should have been a higher or lower one. Certainly there has been nothing yet placed before this house to show by what strange coincidence the government happened to decide upon exactly the same figure as was the remaining balance of the loan not yet taken up by the British government.
Surely there was some more exact, some more precise and some sounder basis of computation than merely the fact that there was a figure of $65 million then left? The Prime Minister in fact has given a key to the way that this was arrived at when he tells us that it was pointed out to the British government that there was $65 million remaining, a fact which, as he has already said, they well knew. Obviously that was pointed out to them for a particular purpose, and they did not see fit to carry forward the suggestion implied in that remark.
The hon. members of this house are anxious to make sure that whatever the moral obligation may be to the wheat producers of western Canada, that moral obligation shall be fulfilled. I am sure that that applies to hon. members in every part of the house. However, they

must know the basis upon which the computation is to be made and the principle that is to apply in arriving at that figure.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who has made the last formal statement on behalf of the government, is to be taken as interpreting the views of the government at this stage in regard to the contract, then there is nothing owing under the contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I stated definitely that the government felt there was. I discussed the "have regard to" clause. I said that the United Kingdom took the view that no more was owing. The government did not share that view and they have paid an amount that they thought appropriate.


George Alexander Drew: When was -that statement made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: You said that you read my statement carefully. If you read it carefully you would have -come across it.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if that is contained in the speech he made last night?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: Because that is not-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just read the speech.


George Alexander Drew: -contained in the Hansard I have in front of me. The Hansard which I have refers to this as follows, and I am reading from page 1172. I am quoting the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
As I have said, the British government has discharged its legal obligations under the agreement and is not in default. Subsequently, however, the Canadian government considered it advisable to inform the United Kingdom government of the views of certain producers' groups to the effect that sufficient account had not been taken in the final settlement of the so-called have regard to clause.


An hon. Member:: Go on.


George Alexander Drew: Those are the words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read on.


George Alexander Drew: I have referred already to the
fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce then went on to say that accordingly the Prime Minister discussed this matter with the Prime Minister of Great Britain when he was here and also when our Prime Minister was in London. I shall go on to quote the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce immediately after that. They are:
It was never suggested to the British government at any time that they were in legal default under the agreement.
That is clear and explicit. That being so-


George James McIlraith: Read the next sentence.


George Alexander Drew: Certainly; I shall read what
follows. It is:
It was pointed out, however, that the existence of dissatisfaction among wheat producers in Canada about the results of the agreement could have unfortunate consequence for future trade relationships between our two countries and that the British government might wish to reconsider their earlier decision. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), made similar representations a few weeks ago. As the house knows, however, the British government did not see fit to make any further payments.
That was a perfectly legal and proper decision for them to make under the agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Carry on.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite happy to read the whole speech:
The Canadian government, while recognizing that the legal obligation of the British government
Canadian Wheat Board Act
under the agreement had been fulfilled, took a different view of the over-all results and decided to pay into the five-year pool the $65 million that remained under the United Kingdom loan act.
That is exactly what I said at the outset of my remarks, that the payment was a payment winding up the pool and was not a payment under this contract. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow is private members' day.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 14, 1951